Cryptozoology forums > Blogs > Brad's blog > view thread
Subject: Forest in the North East
From: Rangoon posted Tue, Jun 19 2007, 10:20pm 
I'm glad to see you took on this blog brad, I for one appreciate your focus and professional atitude.

I can certainly say there is plenty of forest in New England to my own eyes. I frequently travel into Connecticut and of course live in NewHampshire but the issue of bigfoot has had me traveling to Whitehall NY as well as Clinton NJ. In every place in the North East where bigfoot is rumored I have found abundent forest and spotted plenty of deer.

Of course in the spirit of your blog I won't say that this means that there is anything squatchy really happening. The fact remains that some people have the illusion that the NE is paved urban sprawl which just isn't the case.

I was most interested in your blog regarding the clusters of reports and your reasoning there. I have noticed similliar patterns in report sites extending from Maine through to NH,VT,and over to Whitehall. There could be something to the notion that these are situated near "touristy" areas and thus mis-id's but the flip side of that is also that these areas are not heavily populated for most of the year which could account for there not being more sightings.

Good job! However for someone who is so proud of their good looks you could come up with a better pic...(grins)
Subject: Re: Forest in the North East
From: Brad posted Wed, Jun 20 2007, 12:13am 
I can certainly say there is plenty of forest in New England to my own eyes. I frequently travel into Connecticut and of course live in NewHampshire
...
In every place in the North East where bigfoot is rumored I have found abundent forest and spotted plenty of deer.
...
The fact remains that some people have the illusion that the NE is paved urban sprawl which just isn't the case.


I have been all over the entire state of NY, Central PA, and also in Western CT, Mass, and Vermont. There is without doubt enough forested land, as you say. Everything is forested in these areas. You're right that many people have these allusions that the East is all urban. Its simply not true; there is more forest here than in the PNW per acre of total land area. Thats a fact.



I was most interested in your blog regarding the clusters of reports and your reasoning there. I have noticed similliar patterns in report sites extending from Maine through to NH,VT,and over to Whitehall.


Now thats interesting. I didn't know that, but its not surprising. I bet you could find these clusters of sightings down the entire appalachians. Mobile creatures connected to each other via forested conduits, from population area to population area. This doesn't sound like a hoax or mis-ids to me, this sounds like actual populations of real animals.



Good job! However for someone who is so proud of their good looks you could come up with a better pic...(grins)


LMAO! Hey, I only said I was better looking than Loren Coleman, lol.
Subject: Re: Forest in the North East
From: Seeker posted Thu, Jun 21 2007, 1:35am 
Brad,

As a citizen of the great state of New "Joisey" euphemistically called the "Garden State" I have to attest to the oxymoron that is presented in it's nickname.

It's both densely populated, yet it has woodland areas that harbor 28 different species of mammal.

My daily commute is a microcosm of they duality of New Jersey. I leave my log cabin (yes, I live in a log cabin) in a heavily forested lake community and drive down a crowded local highway to a office in the middle of urban sprawl. All within the span of 20 miles.

This morning a black bear was making a snack of a white tail deer carcass in the shoulder of the road, as hundreds of motorists barely took note, "just another urban Jersey bear", as both black and turkey vultures lazily roar thermals overhead.

the 42% of the forested areas are heavily forested, from the Pine barren in South Jersey to the deciduous forests of the highlands and the skylands with pockets of humanity riddling the forested areas. It's weird, but it's New Jersey.

Nice stuff Brad.

Cheers,
Seeker

on a totally unrelated but perhaps parallel point to a former post, I was working on a paper about NJ's indigenous Native American Tribe, the Leni Lenape. Interestingly enough, they migrated seasonally. From the Skylands and Highlands (Northwestern NJ and Northern NJ respectively) to the "Jersey Shore" as the weather allowed. It seems seasonal primate migrations aren't only a sasquatch thing.
Subject: Re: Forest in the North East
From: Brad posted Thu, Jun 21 2007, 10:38pm 
the 42% of the forested areas are heavily forested, from the Pine barren in South Jersey to the deciduous forests of the highlands and the skylands with pockets of humanity riddling the forested areas. It's weird, but it's New Jersey.

42% is still a pretty big number. Not big compared to some states, but thats a lot of forest. The high human population densities are not situated near these thick forests, so even though NJ has that high population rate, it doesn't tell the whole story.




on a totally unrelated but perhaps parallel point to a former post, I was working on a paper about NJ's indigenous Native American Tribe, the Leni Lenape. Interestingly enough, they migrated seasonally. From the Skylands and Highlands (Northwestern NJ and Northern NJ respectively) to the "Jersey Shore" as the weather allowed. It seems seasonal primate migrations aren't only a sasquatch thing.

Thats very interesting, thanks. The more you learn about this, the more things fall into place.
Subject: Re: Forest in the North East
From: Crypto-Joe posted Sun, Jul 8 2007, 5:06am 
I have been thinking lately about the forest area of the northeast, and thinking of my own state. NH is approx. 85% forested, but 150 years ago it was mainly farmland. As I'm pretty sure a lot of area in the NE was farmland back then. So could this explain why there are more sightings in the PNW than the NE. Could the early colonists have driven the animals west away from the expansion happening here in New England. With the vast majority of the continent virgin forest it makes sense that BF would roam the entire area. The arrival of the colonists and the growth of civilization on the east coast Sent BF packing. Now, 150 years later there is plenty of recovered farmland that nature has returned to forest. This is the case in all the states in the northeast. So as the forest has returned, maybe so has BF. To me that explains the lack of reports in the NE earlier in the century as compared to now. Sorry if I seem to be rambling but I'm still working with this theory and sometimes it makes more sense to me than to others.

Joe - runnin' on empty.
Subject: Re: Forest in the North East
From: Tarzan posted Tue, Jul 17 2007, 11:05pm 
Pardon me for butting in, in case someone already mentioned this:
Is the eastern forest contiguous? Is the forest composed of primarily indigenous flora? And if the eastern forest is contiguous, is it of a size that would meet bigfoot's territorial needs? A grizzly bear, I think, needs 200 miles of territory. Would that be enough for a larger animal?
Tarzan
Subject: Re: Forest in the North East
From: xSASQUATCHx posted Fri, Jul 20 2007, 10:17pm 
but sasquatch has to be much smarter then a bear and could easily get more nutrition from a smaller area


Close Window