For the sake of argument, let’s assume for a few minutes that there is no doubt that Sasquatch exists, and has existed long before the first European set foot upon the soil of this continent. Let’s also assume that their original habitat ran from coast to coast, and for comfort sake, they wouldn’t want to be too hot nor too cold, from very Northern Mexico to midway northward through Canada. They were shy and reclusive, so that when the first Europeans came here, they most certainly would not have been in the welcoming party waiting upon the beach. They just maintained their distance, while observing the new arrivals from the safety of their forested habitat, trying to decide if this was another species they wanted to interact with or to avoid.

The Europeans, now tired from the long voyage on their ships and quite famished for fresh food, especially meat, go into the forests in search of game. The sasquatch follows them, still hidden and observing, watching with wonderment as the first newcomer raises this long stick-like object and points it at a deer. Of course, we know it as a blunderbuss, but they wouldn’t have any idea of what it was, or what it could do. Maybe the sasquatches even sat there and giggled to themselves about how silly these newcomers were, using this big stick to presumably ward off any attack by their harmless companion of the forests. Then, in the twinkle of an eye, their whole world is turned upside down, as a flash of lightning and the roar of thunder bursts forth from the end of the stick. As the smoke clears, they — now trembling at this frightening display — notice the deer lay blood covered and dead on the forest floor.

If the Sasquatch has any intelligence whatsoever, their instinct or power of reasoning is going to tell them to get out of there and avoid these newcomers at all costs. In answer to that, they move a little out of the area the newcomers are slowly populating. As time goes by, they keep moving and keep avoiding those that carry the storm sticks. Where do they go? Surely not east into the very belly of the beasts, so they start heading westward, and keep doing so until there is no place left to go. The Pacific Ocean is a natural barrier that blocks further progress. Total fiction and fabrication? Or is there something that just might substantiate this theory? For an answer, let’s look at some numbers.

Since the BFRO still maintains the largest sighting database online, I will use their figures in an attempt to substantiate this theory. In the United States, the furthest western states, of the lower forty-eight, are Washington, Oregon and California. These three states have 942 reports total listed in the database. That is over thirty four percent of all bigfoot reports in the entire United States. If we broaden our scope a bit more, and include all the western states, adding Idaho, Nevada, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, Arizona and New Mexico, we get 1,216 reports total, or just over forty four percent of all reports. That is eleven states accounting for almost half of all sasquatch reports out of fifty states. Logically, one would think that it would be more realistic to expect something more in the neighborhood of twenty percent, if this was nothing more than a nationwide phenomena of people making up stories. With this large of a percentage occurring in these particular states, with a reasonable logical theory of why it would be this way, I think adds a bit more credibility to the entire issue. Canada shows the same type of pattern, with 110 reports, of the 175 Canadian reports coming from the western provinces of British Columbia, Alberta and the Yukon, that’s almost sixty three percent.

There are two non-western states that seem to have an extraordinarily high number of reports, considerably out of character with the states surrounding them. Those states are Texas with 155 reports and Ohio with 187. Why would these states seem to be home to more sightings of sasquatch than nearby states? Is there some sort of physical barrier that kept them from moving further west with the rest of their kind? Were they cut off or surrounded by the encroaching Europeans and simply decide to dig in and hope for the best? Do these states simply have more over imaginative residents? Or was there something in the states that held them there longer, or even until it was too late to move on?

Let’s look at the State of Texas first. The western part of the state is the beginning of the arid and desert like geography of the Southwest. Water is scarce, and I have no doubt it gets considerably more scarce as you move into New Mexico and Arizona. As a living creature, bigfoot would need a source of water and this may have been part of the reason why he didn’t move further west out of Texas. Both in the history of Texas, and even to this day, there is still a lot of country that is uninhabited. The Waggoner Ranch near Vernon, TX is considered the largest Texan ranch under one fence with its approximate 520,000 acres. That is over 812 square miles for one ranch, and there are many large ranches in Texas. Charles Goodnight, a noted cattle rancher during the late 1800s into the early 1900s, had a ranch at one time that was much larger covering over 1,300,000 acres! With plats of land like that, you can imagine there are a number of places where sasquatch could be hiding. But with the population of Texas continuing to grow, shouldn’t sasquatch have been forced out by now?

The total population of Texas is approximately 22,859,968 people spread out over 261,797 square miles, divided into 254 counties. At first glance, it looks like Texas is becoming a little crowded averaging around eighty-seven people per square mile. Then you read about Harris County Texas, with its 3,683,050 inhabitants, and covering 1,720 square miles. That is over 16 percent of the state’s population living on less than seven tenths of one percent of the land. That brings us down to fewer than seventy-four people per square mile, which is still a bit high. Harris County includes the city of Houston, which is the largest city in the state, but not the only large city. San Antonio, Dallas, Austin, Fort Worth, El Paso, Arlington, Corpus Christie, Plano and Garland round out the top 10 list, and another 5,377,561 inhabitants living on another 1,976 square miles. That brings our totals up to 9,606,611 people living on 3,696 square miles. That is just over forty two percent of the total population living on just under one and a half percent of the land, or about fifty-one people per square mile. That is quite a difference after only ten cities. If I continued, it would become evident fairly soon how much land is still open in Texas. With the population being primarily centered in urban areas, and wide expanses of rangeland, there really is no reason for sasquatch to move on, at least at this time.

So what about Ohio, would it’s situation be something similar to Texas? First, there is no desert to the west of Ohio so that’s not something of concern, nor are there any waterways that can’t be crossed, nor steep mountains. Taking it’s total population of 11,464,042 living on 40,948 square miles or 248 people per square mile makes it hard to consider enough metropolitan areas in this state to bring it anywhere near the fifty one people per square mile that I ended up with in Texas after only ten metropolitan areas. Looking at the counties with reports listed, you will find fifty-eight counties having reports. Eleven of the top thirteen counties for numbers of reports are located in either the northeast or southeast areas of the state.

Using the reports from the eleven top counties, we get thirty seven percent of the total counties in the state accounting for sixty seven percent of the sightings. Curious to see if there was anything that set these counties apart from the rest of the state, I began my search for answers.

I decided to focus on the eleven of the original top thirteen to start with. If there was anything setting these counties apart, it should be readily obvious. I have driven through Ohio on a number of occasions and one thing that sticks out in my mind is the difference between the terrains of NW Ohio compared to the eastern end of the state. NW Ohio reminds me a lot of Nebraska, one of those states where you could almost tie your steering wheel in place, set your cruise control and take a two-hour nap. Upon waking, you would still find yourself not only in Ohio, but most likely still in your own lane on the freeway. The eastern end of the state brings hills and the beginning of the Appalachian Mountain Range in stark contrast.

The most obvious place to look for answers was at the website of the Ohio Department of Natural Resources at maps of wildlife areas in the Northeast and Southeast portions of the state, located here http://www.ohiodnr.com/wildlife/Hunting/wi…eas/wildare.htm. Studying the maps showed a repeating similarity of many of these publicly owned lands in both regions of the state. A pattern I’ve seen before while studying other sasquatch sightings in other states: woodlands, swamp/marsh/wetlands and a freshwater source such as lake, pond, river or creek. Studying these maps, and understanding the terrain, could answer the reason why Ohio may have so many sasquatch sightings in comparison to other states.

Just imagine for a moment that you are traveling across a strange country, either on horseback, in a wagon or by foot. You come upon a large expanse of swamp/marsh/wetland, what are you going to do? Travel through the middle of it? Highly doubtful, you don’t want to lose your horse or wagon, and walking with wet boots and socks for miles is nothing short of torture. Any sensible person is going to find a way around it and take the easy way from point A to point B. These swamps/marsh/wetlands may very well have acted like a natural barrier, not to sasquatch, but to the new settlers now expanding across the continent. The sasquatch may very well have felt secure enough to stay there longer than they should have, before moving west. Maybe a few small scouting parties had been sent out, but by this time, large cities like Chicago were already sprouting up and they found themselves surrounded by the new settlers. It was easier, and more likely safer, to remain put, rather than venture into unknown territory.

Another reason there are so many sightings, may not be due to a larger population of sasquatch in Ohio, but simply because there are so many people in that area. I would assume that the actual habitat for sasquatch in this state has been shrinking over the years and areas are becoming more accessible to the public. This being the case, it’s probably also safe to assume that many sightings may be multiple sightings of the same sasquatch, rather than many different sasquatches. What we are seeing in Ohio today, could very well be a precursor to what we all will be experiencing in the very near future. As our population continues to grow and spread out, it’s likely we’ll start seeing some of these same patterns of more frequent sightings develop across the country.