Bigfoot News
Bigfoot Evidence
Bigfoot Evidence
RSS feeds


Yahoo! 
MSN 
AOL 
Netvibes 
Bloglines 



Population numbers relative to sightings

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Population numbers relative to sightings

Post  StankApe on Fri Aug 31, 2012 2:05 am

g


Last edited by StankApe on Thu Sep 20, 2012 8:42 pm; edited 1 time in total
avatar
StankApe

Posts : 351
Join date : 2012-08-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Population numbers relative to sightings

Post  Mr.Lee on Fri Aug 31, 2012 3:08 am

Here's my theory on the thousands of sightings. They can't all be true nor can they all be false. Not sure if its the law of averages or the probability theory that applies but if you flip a coin lets say four thousand times it can't always land on heads or tails. So even if the smallest percentage of the sightings are true(which they would have to be since they can't all be false) then wouldn't that prove some large bipedal creature is walking around in our forests.

Mr.Lee

Posts : 60
Join date : 2012-08-23
Location : California unfortunately

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Population numbers relative to sightings

Post  Tzieth on Fri Aug 31, 2012 3:43 am

U.S. Estimated population of Cougars is 50,000 and I myself, have never seen one in the wild.

As for PNW Sasquatch, they are thought to migrate. So even if they had a lower population, it would explain the reason for the sightings. (But even this is not my point of view.) Sightings seem to be increasing and many factors could explain this.

#1) As you skeptics would most readily embrace, Bigfoot is becoming more popular, thus causing more people to fantasize and fabricate sightings, or hoax or play practical jokes on others.

#2) Loss of habitat is causing them to consolidate and moving human population further into their habitat. (also not where I stand, but I can find it likely)

#3) Their populations are increasing.

#4) "Bigfoot" has become a generic term for multiple hairy bipeds. (This is where I stand). If Skunk ape truly is an ape (as the original reports suggested) and if Marked Hominids are Neanderthals, and PNW Sasquatch are Homo-Heidlebergis and the Southern Sasquatch is Homo erectus, for example.. They all get called "Bigfoot".

With that said, most of the sightings do not involve people seeing one cross the road or stumbling on to one. The majority are Bigfoot finding the witness. Either stalking them or the witness happens to spot one that was staring at them long before they noticed it.

It seems to me that they get spotted because they are studying us and most likely know more about us than we know of them. To say "We would have found them by now." is common arrogant human nature. You will not find something that does not want to be found especially in it's own environment unless you know where to look and we do not. It took nearly a century to confirm a crypted we now call The Gorilla. The stories were there, the eye-witnesses were there and the evidence was there. But we had no clue as to find them. Then a skull was found and we still could not find them and they were speculated to be "Extinct". Then once one was captured, other Universities disputed the find as it's body did not keep on the trip back to Europe. And each Scientist who was fighting to be the guy who discovered it, would discredit the competition. (Same thing going on here.)

But if Sasquatch is a human cousin, then that makes it all the more hard to find. Something with our own intelligence but with elusive skill and possibly heightened senses and nocturnal on top of it.

But unlike it, we are not hard to find at all. We are probably the most predictable animal on the planet. If camping, we will stick to beaten trails and make campfires and mostly party and make lots of noise. Our Homes are lit up at night, we make roads that we drive on. If a Sasquatch wants to see us, all it has to do is stand there and wait.

So it may not be the case of "how can there be so many sightings?" as much as it could be "How many Bigfoots get careless when sighting us?" Or maybe they now want to be seen but on their own terms? Or depending how human they are, maybe it's a game to them?
avatar
Tzieth

Posts : 478
Join date : 2012-08-27
Age : 43
Location : Vancouver, Washington

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Population numbers relative to sightings

Post  StankApe on Fri Aug 31, 2012 3:52 am

g


Last edited by StankApe on Thu Sep 20, 2012 8:42 pm; edited 1 time in total
avatar
StankApe

Posts : 351
Join date : 2012-08-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Population numbers relative to sightings

Post  DPinkerton on Fri Aug 31, 2012 9:07 am

Guided,

Very concise quantitative post, thank you. It greatly helps to put things in perspective like that.

DPinkerton

Posts : 171
Join date : 2012-08-14
Location : Colorado

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Population numbers relative to sightings

Post  Tzieth on Fri Aug 31, 2012 10:00 am

Yeah we do not literally have thousands of reports per year year... More like 100's per year and 10's of 1,000's total. But the 100's have become more frequent. The other reason as to this is the internet it's self. News gets spread faster and people who encountered one have a place to report it and read others reports instead of feeling they should keep it to them selves.

And if you look at the BFRO data base, most of the "New Reports" are actually old incidents from the 70's and 80's that are only just now being reported.
avatar
Tzieth

Posts : 478
Join date : 2012-08-27
Age : 43
Location : Vancouver, Washington

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Population numbers relative to sightings

Post  StankApe on Fri Aug 31, 2012 11:58 am

g


Last edited by StankApe on Thu Sep 20, 2012 8:42 pm; edited 1 time in total
avatar
StankApe

Posts : 351
Join date : 2012-08-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Fallacious

Post  ***** on Fri Aug 31, 2012 12:46 pm

Arguing from false premise....

"There are only 5,000 across America, therefore the number of sightings is unsupported."

You can pull whatever number out of the hat you like, you would still be arguing from false authority, or premise.



We have no idea how many Sasquatch there are in N.America. Animal populations are continually underestimated, and that's been proven out historically. Now combine that, with our sheer lack of knowledge regarding the species in question, it's habits, abilities, dispersal, intelligence, etc. If it's a higher primate, and wishes to avoid us, and remain uncatalogued, and off the dissection tables, it certainly could have the ability to do so. Chimps, Gorillas, Pandas were able to do so for hundreds and hundreds of years.


*****

Posts : 279
Join date : 2012-08-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Population numbers relative to sightings

Post  StankApe on Fri Aug 31, 2012 1:20 pm

g


Last edited by StankApe on Thu Sep 20, 2012 8:42 pm; edited 1 time in total
avatar
StankApe

Posts : 351
Join date : 2012-08-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Population numbers relative to sightings

Post  StankApe on Fri Aug 31, 2012 1:21 pm

g


Last edited by StankApe on Thu Sep 20, 2012 8:42 pm; edited 1 time in total
avatar
StankApe

Posts : 351
Join date : 2012-08-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Population numbers relative to sightings

Post  CMcMillan on Fri Aug 31, 2012 1:33 pm

Stank,

In MY State Black Bear population as of 2007-2008
The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) estimates there are between 300 and 500 black bears in the state, and that the bear population is growing annually by between 10% and 20%. It is illegal to hunt or trap bears in Connecticut. However, people may kill bears in self-defense and farmers or farm workers may trap and kill bears that injure property on agricultural lands.

DEP reports that there were 2,759 bear sightings and 375 reports of bear damage in 2007-08. Two-thirds of the reports of damage involved raids on birdfeeders or trash. Although black bears are generally not aggressive towards humans, DEP has taken steps to advise people how to respond to the increasing number of encounters with these animals.

this is the estimated Population of CT for 2011 estimate 3,580,709 take that in account with the Black bear population. and number of sightings.

I had a black bear walk down my street couple of years ago.

So it is very possible that that people are seeing Bigfoots even with the small population of bigfoot look at the bear sightings in CT with the bear population.


avatar
CMcMillan

Posts : 1097
Join date : 2012-08-05
Location : USA CT

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Population numbers relative to sightings

Post  Mr.Lee on Sat Sep 01, 2012 12:16 am

Justin may have beaten curiosity to the punch.

Mr.Lee

Posts : 60
Join date : 2012-08-23
Location : California unfortunately

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Population numbers relative to sightings

Post  GT3Paul on Sat Sep 01, 2012 12:44 am

Someone brought up the idea of migration. i was told by a senior researcher that the northeastern and Canadian Squatches move soon to the southeastern states.
And the PNW Squatches start soon migrating toward mexico. He said they should soon start passing through my neck of the woods. He says that we should be able
to see fairly close to where I live some of the suckers tramping through. He said he would come down here during that time frame and help me look. That would be in the October/November time frame before they head down to Cabo and start partying up. Given my unleashing a technical barrage on these guys like they have never seen before, I hope to have some luck this fall. At least with the THermals.
avatar
GT3Paul
Admin

Posts : 315
Join date : 2012-08-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Population numbers relative to sightings

Post  Mr.Lee on Sat Sep 01, 2012 1:08 am

I hope you get lucky. Much respect to the people that go out there & look.

Mr.Lee

Posts : 60
Join date : 2012-08-23
Location : California unfortunately

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Population numbers relative to sightings

Post  StankApe on Sat Sep 01, 2012 4:54 am

g



Last edited by StankApe on Thu Sep 20, 2012 8:43 pm; edited 1 time in total
avatar
StankApe

Posts : 351
Join date : 2012-08-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Guesswork

Post  ***** on Sat Sep 01, 2012 10:54 am

StankApe wrote:
GT3Paul wrote:Someone brought up the idea of migration. i was told by a senior researcher that the northeastern and Canadian Squatches move soon to the southeastern states.
And the PNW Squatches start soon migrating toward mexico. He said they should soon start passing through my neck of the woods. He says that we should be able
to see fairly close to where I live some of the suckers tramping through. He said he would come down here during that time frame and help me look. That would be in the October/November time frame before they head down to Cabo and start partying up. Given my unleashing a technical barrage on these guys like they have never seen before, I hope to have some luck this fall. At least with the THermals.

I find that a bit of a stretch Paul, i could buy into the concept of a elevation migration , as it only involves moving a few miles and down the mountain as it were. But to say that a sustaining population migrates 1000 miles or more, at the rate of 5 or 6 mph, plus rests time.....well that's a lot of time in motion, and a lot of energy spent, it seems unlikely.


It's just conjecture and theory, so all guesswork is acceptable here. Carry on gents!


If anything one would expect a period of aestivation,preceded by some hoarding and perhaps some short distance migration (say from over 8,000 feet to less than 2000 feet where the grass still grows here and there)

*****

Posts : 279
Join date : 2012-08-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Population numbers relative to sightings

Post  CMcMillan on Sat Sep 01, 2012 11:20 am

StankApe wrote:
GT3Paul wrote:Someone brought up the idea of migration. i was told by a senior researcher that the northeastern and Canadian Squatches move soon to the southeastern states.
And the PNW Squatches start soon migrating toward mexico. He said they should soon start passing through my neck of the woods. He says that we should be able
to see fairly close to where I live some of the suckers tramping through. He said he would come down here during that time frame and help me look. That would be in the October/November time frame before they head down to Cabo and start partying up. Given my unleashing a technical barrage on these guys like they have never seen before, I hope to have some luck this fall. At least with the THermals.

I find that a bit of a stretch Paul, i could buy into the concept of a elevation migration , as it only involves moving a few miles and down the mountain as it were. But to say that a sustaining population migrates 1000 miles or more, at the rate of 5 or 6 mph, plus rests time.....well that's a lot of time in motion, and a lot of energy spent, it seems unlikely.


If anything one would expect a period of aestivation,preceded by some hoarding and perhaps some short distance migration (say from over 8,000 feet to less than 2000 feet where the grass still grows here and there)

Well Stank again you do not take in account that Native American Indians would Migrate to areas of better hunting depending on the season.
When the food sources dried up in the area they moved. So it is Possible and I can see Sasquatch's Migrating to areas. I don't believe they are always in motion but they do move to other areas.
Food, Get away from us Humans, etcc...
avatar
CMcMillan

Posts : 1097
Join date : 2012-08-05
Location : USA CT

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Population numbers relative to sightings

Post  chiefmark on Sun Sep 02, 2012 9:39 pm

Love this thread. It's so difficult to give population figures for any animal. I've always winced at any figure given for endangered species. Just how do we know? Tagging partly yes, but contrary to the over-stated belief that there are few places on earth left undiscovered, there are lots of places man hasn't set foot, or set foot very rarely at least.

With Bigfoot reports. you can't even breakdown sightings by colour or size as these are likely to both change on each one over time and so could be the same one. Tie this in with the distinct possibility that they're nomadic and following food migrations and chuck in a possible life expectancy of 40+ years and you've got a complex sum.

There's MVP's to consider sure, but the trouble with sustainable breeding populations are factoring in in-breeding, which is another distinct possibility.

Factoring everything in, and having a very wild guess, my estimate figure is somewhere between 5,000 and 10,000 in North America.
avatar
chiefmark

Posts : 18
Join date : 2012-08-31
Age : 33
Location : Isle of Man, UK

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Population numbers relative to sightings

Post  StankApe on Sun Sep 02, 2012 9:45 pm

g


Last edited by StankApe on Thu Sep 20, 2012 8:43 pm; edited 1 time in total
avatar
StankApe

Posts : 351
Join date : 2012-08-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Population numbers relative to sightings

Post  StankApe on Sun Sep 02, 2012 10:36 pm

g


Last edited by StankApe on Thu Sep 20, 2012 8:43 pm; edited 1 time in total
avatar
StankApe

Posts : 351
Join date : 2012-08-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Population numbers relative to sightings

Post  DPinkerton on Mon Sep 03, 2012 12:03 am

I do not think Bigfoot needs to migrate in the same terms as birds or whales that travel 1000s of miles each year. I imagine them to be more like early Homo...

The earliest humans probably lived primarily on scavenging, not actual hunting. Early humans in the Lower Paleolithic lived in mixed habitats which allowed them to collect seafood, eggs, nuts, and fruits besides scavenging. Rather than killing large animals themselves for meat, they used carcasses of large animals killed by other predators or carcasses from animals that died by natural causes.

Hunting and gathering was presumably the subsistence strategy employed by human societies beginning some 1.8 million years ago, by Homo erectus, and from its appearance some 0.2 million years ago by Homo sapiens. It remained the only mode of subsistence until the end of the Mesolithic period some 10,000 years ago,

Habitat and population

Hunter-gatherer societies tend to be relatively mobile, given their reliance upon the ability of a given natural environment to provide sufficient resources in order to sustain their population and the variable availability of these resources owing to local climatic and seasonal conditions. Individual band societies tend to be small in number (10-50 individuals), but these may gather together seasonally to temporarily form a larger group (100 or more) when resources are abundant. In a few places where the environment is especially productive, such as that of the Pacific Northwest coast or Jomon-era Japan, hunter-gatherers are able to settle permanently.[citation needed]

Hunter-gatherer settlements may be either permanent, temporary, or some combination of the two, depending upon the mobility of the community. Mobile communities typically construct shelters using impermanent building materials, or they may use natural rock shelters, where they are available.

DPinkerton

Posts : 171
Join date : 2012-08-14
Location : Colorado

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Population numbers relative to sightings

Post  GT3Paul on Mon Sep 03, 2012 2:49 am

Stank, I dont think the migration is that much of a stretch. Lets face it, the idea that it exists is a stretch. So if we make that assumption then the idea
that they migrate a 1000 miles or less is not that hard to imagine. In my area it would be an altitude migration from the high Sierras, Cascades. All the way up to
the mountains of Washington moving down to the areas of central Southern California is not that hard to understand. BECAUSE if you think they exist then some of the ideas that they move swifty and at night isnt too hard to imagine. Heck if some people from Central Mexico can make it up to Idaho and further North then a squatch should be able to do it easily.
avatar
GT3Paul
Admin

Posts : 315
Join date : 2012-08-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Population numbers relative to sightings

Post  StankApe on Mon Sep 03, 2012 3:33 am

g


Last edited by StankApe on Thu Sep 20, 2012 8:43 pm; edited 1 time in total
avatar
StankApe

Posts : 351
Join date : 2012-08-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Population numbers relative to sightings

Post  CMcMillan on Mon Sep 03, 2012 7:27 am

StankApe wrote:
GT3Paul wrote:Stank, I dont think the migration is that much of a stretch. Lets face it, the idea that it exists is a stretch. So if we make that assumption then the idea
that they migrate a 1000 miles or less is not that hard to imagine. In my area it would be an altitude migration from the high Sierras, Cascades. All the way up to
the mountains of Washington moving down to the areas of central Southern California is not that hard to understand. BECAUSE if you think they exist then some of the ideas that they move swifty and at night isnt too hard to imagine. Heck if some people from Central Mexico can make it up to Idaho and further North then a squatch should be able to do it easily.


When I hear the word "migration" I think like 400-500 miles +... 100 miles doesn't seem out of the question at all... guess it was just how long a distance we each interpret a migration to be

That is because you think Bird Migration instead of looking at how HUMANS or How Gorilla's move.
Human migration (derived from Latin: migratio) is physical movement by humans from one area to another, sometimes over long distances or in large groups. Historically this movement was nomadic, often causing significant conflict with the indigenous population and their displacement or cultural assimilation. Only a few nomadic people have retained this form of lifestyle in modern times

All groups of gorillas, known as troops, are nomadic and never stay in the same place for more than a day. Every morning, silver backs lead their troops to new areas where they will spend part of the day eating and foraging food for themselves and younger gorillas. They spend the afternoons napping, grooming and playing, before they eat again in the evening

So if Bigfoot is either an Ape or Early Hominid it makes logical sense that they may be Nomadic.
So instead of the term Migration we should use the term Nomadic
avatar
CMcMillan

Posts : 1097
Join date : 2012-08-05
Location : USA CT

View user profile

Back to top Go down

The wolverine

Post  CMcMillan on Wed Sep 05, 2012 11:20 am

The wolverine is the largest
of the weasel family, but more resembles a small bear. A full-grown male may be 4
feet long including tail, stand 17 inches at the shoulder, and weigh 60 pounds. The
wolverine is a rare and remarkably elusive, solitary predator that has a very large
home range of over 240 square miles. One individual that was radio-collared with a
GPS transmitter wandered nearly 550 miles over a six-week period. In one nineteen-
day span it traversed a 250-mile stretch from Grand Teton National Park to a ridge just
east of my hometown of Pocatello and back again. This individual, at least during his
wandering phase, had an estimated home range of 23,000 square miles. The wolverine’s
preferred habitat range largely corresponds to areas of regional sasquatch reports.
The seminar presentation was well illustrated, and I was curious about the protocols
used to get such stunning photographs of such a secretive animal as the wolverine.
The presenter’s response was, “Do you remember that one particular slide with a distant
tiny brown dot on a white field of snow? That was the only photo in this presentation
of a wolverine taken in the wild. All the rest were simply staged in a pen on
a game ranch.”

SASQUATCH: LEGEND MEETS SCIENCE -JEFF MELDRUM Copyright © 2006 "Chapter 6 Caught on Camera: Photographics and Forensic Measurements Page 126-127 "
avatar
CMcMillan

Posts : 1097
Join date : 2012-08-05
Location : USA CT

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Population numbers relative to sightings

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum