Cryptozoology forums > Blogs > Brad's blog > view thread

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