There may well be potential "hot spots" all across the country. Although some states have more documented sighting, vocalization or activity reports than others, this should not be seen as indicative of how many BF animals may be living in that state.
I personally suspect that wilderness areas in the northern Great Plains and Great Lakes states might be populated with more BF animals than would be suggested from the BFRO database, but because of minimal human activity and access to potential habitat areas (including floodplains, bottoms, swamps, ravines) such locations have fewer documented reports.
Pick someplace with a history of what you consider to be credible sightings, foot prints or other evidence (the more recent the better) and that fits the description of a likely habitat area (that is, a place with ample food and water, hiding places and most importantly, minimal human activity). Determine which "hot spot" is closest to you so you can monitor the vicinity periodically. Then make a point of going there-- the best intentions of doing field research aren't enough, you have to physically do it.
I personally think multiple visits over time will probably be more productive than one long visit (such as a weekend campout). Also, repeat visits to the area are necessary to notice and identify any recent changes in the vicinity-- such as large branches being moved, possible nest building, fresh tree breaks or other physical evidence. Try different access points and different times of the day.
If you aren't finding or observing anything suspicious after several visits, move on to another potential "hot spot." Over time, you will develop a handful of locations within reasonable range of where you live that you are monitoring on a regular basis.
Someday and somewhere somebody with a working knowledge of what to be observing in the field is going to be rewarded with a sighting or encounter. Hopefully, you'll have the audio, video or photographic equipment-- and luck-- to document it. If I had to choose between skill and luck-- I'd rather be lucky any day.
Please don't think I'm making this all sound easy, but I do hope to encourage more people to get out in the field and be alert. Not all BF enthusiasts are living in "prime" BF territory like the Pacific Northwest-- but don't overlook the credible reports coming from potential habitat areas in the eastern United States from Texas to West Virginia to Wisconsin and many points in between. To some extent, those of us residing near geographically smaller habitat areas may have the advantage because we can focus our attention in the field to pockets of land measured in dozens of square miles rather than the hundreds of thousands of square miles of wilderness in so-called "prime" territory.
For example, Midwest states like Iowa, Illinois, Indiana or Ohio may indeed be as much as 90% agricultural or urban landscapes-- this only helps limit our investigation efforts to the remaining 10% of forests and waterways. For someone with a working knowledge of the behaviors and physical evidence thought to be indicative of these animals, the odds of tracking them has to be better in a more confined area.
SOURCE: Originally posted on 1-Jun-2006 as a discussion thread hosted at http://www.stancourtney.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=4&highlight==
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Howdy EscAPEe. Found a link to this blog at anomolist where they mentioned your essay on the Pennsylvania teamster's observations. Agreed, when I first read the report, on BFRO I think, I was pretty skeptical since I'd lived in that area for years and was aware of the degree of environmental change that had gone on in central PA over the last 150 years. Never the less, my interest and myown experience in living in post-glacial Alaska has expanded my notion of what's possible with a creature possessing the attributes ascribed to BF.
I'm curious as to your opinion on that recent sighting in Vermont, IL. Another case of BF appearing in what seemingly is a populated area. Google Earth shows the property to be bordered by a brushy drainage leading without interruption down to the Ohion Mississippi confluence.
Another question I'd ask is whether you'd ever read the postings of Keith Foster who brings forward what I think is a remarkably naturalistic interpretation of sasquatch, though I differ with him in a few things. Anyhow...appreciate reading your postings and I've put this into my favorites list. I'm looking forward to reading more. cheers.
dogu4,
I appreciate reading your comments on Cryptomundo and here on this blog.
Regarding the recently published sighting report in Vermont, that is merely the tip of the iceberg here in Illinois. We seem to be having simultaneous "hotspots" of activity around the state-- all located along creeks or tributaries of the Missisippi-Illinois-Ohio river systems. It appears that Illinois hosts several groups of creatures living, moving about and foraging in these wetlands, ravines and woodlands hidden from human access and interference. The same may hold true for Pennsylvannia and other "populated" regions in the eastern United States.
And thanks for recommending the postings of Keith Foster, I'll be watching for his material.
Post a Comment