gigantor

Poll: Do You Think BF has a Viable Population?

Poll: Do You Think BF has a Viable Population?   63 members have voted

  1. 1. I'm curious to see what members think about the status of BF as a species.

    • BF Does Not Exist. It Never Has.
      9
    • BF Existed at Some Point but it has gone Extinct
      3
    • BF Exists now but it is Endangered. Its population is so low that it probably won't make it.
      7
    • BF Exists now and it is a viable species. It should survive if its habitat is protected
      23
    • BF Exists now and it is doing Great. Its population is large enough.
      21

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

137 posts in this topic

Call fish and game and ask to speak with a biologist.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BigTreeWalker said:

Just playing devils advocate here... But I wonder what percentage of the 30,000 black bears or 2000 cougars in Washington get found dead in the wild? Or where you could even get that information. It would give us some idea what to expect with a subject of similar or less population. 

 

I can address part of that.   It's more reflective of specific critter habits when sick or dying than it is reflective of their relative numbers.    I grew up in a black bear preserve, "family central" was there since the 1930s, I spent periods there off and on up 'til '73 when we moved there permanently to take care of the older generations.    I was there constantly for a bit over 9 years, then spent holidays and summers there through 5 years of college, and still go back hunting and fishing.   In other words, pretty deep saturation in the sight.

 

Despite it being a bear preserve, despite seeing a few to a dozen bears a day in some seasons (and they do not truly hibernate there, they get up every few weeks and mosey around looking for meals ... and will not return to "sleep" as long as there is a food source), I never found a single black bear carcass or bone without a bullet hole to account for it.   NOT ONE.   Cougar skeletal remains, despite there being vastly fewer of them, were not particularly unusual to find.   Same with bobcats and many of the weasels.   Deer and elk ... common as grass pretty nearly.

 

Unless Washington DFW is vastly more attuned than Oregon DFW, I don't think they're going to have that information.    Some road departments MIGHT have data on what was cleaned up but it would be horribly skewed, useful if they get a $1 per deer or something but not reflective of what happens in the wild.

 

MIB

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rob and I found a dead black bear last year elk hunting in LeClerc creek. We were riding our horses behind locked gates. No idea cause of death but it was not a super large bear. Rob took some of the claws. I would guess a 2 year old and maybe 100 ish lbs when alive.

 

I think for both of us that was a first.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This poll inspired me to add a new chart to the SSR, a simple timeline of the number of sightings per month....  I'm still playing with it to make it more presentable.... below is the plot for Washington State from 1980 to 2016.

 

sightings-1980-2016-WA.png

 

and below is every State from 1980 to 2016 (5490 sightings)

 

sightings-1980-2016-all5490.png

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted that it doesn't exist. That's because it really doesn't, technically speaking, of course.

 

My interest in the subject was inspired by a sighting by my own mother. Really, if your mother says she saw one you believe her. I do believe her, although I'm beginning to wain a bit. Zero proof, negligible evidence, and a subculture that claims that they do everything from pilot UFOs to communicate telepathically. Unsubstantiated claim after unsubstantiated claim is all we ever seem to get. The subject has become a joke to many in the mainstream.

 

I want it to exist, but as of now it doesn't. Everything else is speculative.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting charts G. Sightings seemed to hold steady up to the early 2000's then both increased. Now dropping off. I might posit the availability of widespread Internet access. But the decrease... Loss of interest or loss of individuals to sight? A jaded society? Who knows? 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I cleaned it up a little bit...  and replotted from 1970 to 2016.

 

The data supports my hypothesis, BF is gone/going extinct.  :biggrin: 

 

The decrease could be the breakup of the BFRO in the late 2000's. They lost a lot of high quality researchers and maybe they just don't process as many reports anymore. Also, I've noticed there is a delay between the sighting date and when the witness reports it. Most are not reported until a few years later. I think that's PTSD or something similar.

 

Interesting to see a small bubble from 1973 to 1981...  old timers may be able to explain it (Swamp Thing, Chewbacca?)

 

sightings-1970-2016-all.png

 

 

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm loving the look of these things G.

Did I read right that you were cleaning up so that we will be able to generate them within the SSR ?

Oh and G you've surely contradicted yourself.

If most reports aren't reported unlit a few years later like you said, there's no reason at all that the recent drop off in reports won't buff up in the next few years, in which case there wouldn't be any reason to think they're going/gone extinct surely ?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was jesting... put a big grin and everything.

 

We'll see, even if the number of reports goes back down to 1990's level, it shows a stable number of ...  of....  hoaxers at work, very dedicated folks. :biggrin:  /sarcasm

 

Yup, it's implemented in the SSR.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The highest sighting number of the whole life of the graph for 50 states is roughly 50 in one month......50! 

 

The average is more like half that. And we know hoaxing is involved in this subject because Yahoos get hit by cars while dressed in suits. I do not know how to quantify that in these reports. But let's just say less than 25 reports a month for 50 states is legit....it's a pittenance.

 

Who here still thinks we are dealing with a large viable breeding population of Bigfeets coast to coast?

 

20 reports per month x 12 months per year is 240. Divided by 50 states is 4.8 sightings per year per state. This is with roughly 320 million pairs of eyeballs doing the looking.........on foot, horseback, atvs, boats, planes, hot air balloons, trains, google earth, security cameras, game cams, USBP predator drones, military, CIA, NPS, state, county and city LE and wildlife agencies......

 

This is why I'm the small population, low density, extreme wilderness, avoids humans at all costs, nocturnal Bigfoot advocate.

 

Its simply not logical in any other format.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's even less than you suspect Norse.

 

The SSR has a score value, it's a 1 - 10 scale with 10 having the most confidence. The reports are scored manually based on an objective, consistent set of criteria. If we plot the sightings filtering for only reports with a score of 5 or higher, we get the following (2019 reports):

 

sightings-1970-2016-all-score-5+.png

 

and the same chart for a score of 7+ (362 reports!)

 

sightings-1970-2016-all-7+.png

 

Reports prior to the BFRO are dated and score badly because of the amount of time that has elapsed, rightly so. I don't even bother reading reports with a score below 5.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, I don't know how we can use this to determine population dynamics. We can see the difference ease of communication did for sighting numbers. Are we going to say bigfoot numbers were lower, increased in the late nineties then dropped off again? This shows something but it isn't population dynamics. 

Edited by BigTreeWalker
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it shows a decrease in the number of people reporting a BF sighting. Whether that's population dynamics or not is debatable.

 

It does show that the number of high confidence reports (i.e. plausible) is exceedingly small.

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which I interpret as meaning, we really don't have much to go on. But I do find those tables interesting G. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is a witness report scored exactly?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.