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

In just about every year, the number of sightings goes up from beginning of the year to the end, with a sharp drop off every Winter to start again. How do all these "hoaxers" manage to keep that trend going for so many years?

My chart is only BFRO reports in the BFRO era, and you can see that trend in most years. Of course more people get out in the spring, summer, and fall.

bfro 1995-2016.png

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, gigantor said:

 

I give up, what?

 

 

Looks to be a three or four year cycle of some kind.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that you mention it...  those mini-bubbles do look cyclical.

 

But what could it be?  I know, El Nino warm years!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the yearly chart you just posted there is a three year line that I attribute to the software. But in the first graph of WA and the other states it appears there's a definitely thicker blue shaded area about every three to four years. I'm curious, speculating of course, that it may be showing a generational kicking out of the "nest" of juveniles? Yep, big speculation but something is causing the repetition. I also thing that the sort of mid seventies to early-mid 80's shows the accelerated logging trend begun in what? 1973?

Edited by hiflier
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this what you mean?

 

sightings-1980-2016-WA.png

 

But 3 years is not enough for a juvi to be kicked out, maybe its a 6 or 8 year cycle...  shoot, it could be a 12 year cycle!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK. Starting from the left. Check out the second yellow indicator that you placed. To the right of that, over the "2" in "2002. Do you see the thicker light blue line? There's another just to the right of that over the "2" of "2003" then there's one at the beginning of 2006 and between 2009 and 2010. Then another between 2013 and 2014. At the left of the graph at the end of 1980 and again at the start of 1984. Then see 1987, 1990-1991, 1995, and 1998,1999. The pattern jumped out as soon as I saw the first two graphs that you posted along with the more obvious logging push in the 1970's.

Edited by hiflier
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, that's just an artifact of the auto scaling of the x-axis in the plotting routine...  the chart is only so wide and the plot lines don't always divide evenly, so the software overlaps some.

 

But your reasoning of a BF family cycle is interesting. Think of the what the cycle is like:

 

1) Big Daddy finds a mate and knocks her up.

 

2) Party is over, time to lay low and take care of baby

 

3) The juvi grows up and Big Daddy kicks him out

 

4) Teen goes wild, Big Daddy gets busy again, lots of activity

 

5) Teen finds mate and settles down. Big Daddy knocks her up again.

 

The question is how long is that cycle?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For bears it's two years or so. For a male Sasquatch? best guess (oh boy, here we go LOL) a young male could be not too filled out yet but might be 6 feet tall at say three years? Maybe old enough to roam and fend for itself on everything but meat perhaps? Or finds small animals instead of say deer? Still invited to the table on a large kill perhaps. Maybe does the "driving" of game to ambushes. Yep, all speculation. But even though the graph is showing artifacts because lines are close together they may be close together for a reason.

 

@ Norseman, that would still make sense because even though all young aren't born at the same time areas where females are could still have generational cycles. Even young females would get kicked out until they found their own place by the time they reached an age for mating. Without breasts formed all younger Sasquatches may be mistaken for males.

Edited by hiflier
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd venture a guess that bigfoot, if it were to average say 6'6" would not reach a mature(ish) size until about 9 - 12 years old. I could see it being 15 or so before it reaches its peak height,  then a while at of prime ststus, say 16 to 30.  From there it could start to age until about 45, 50 being an old BF.  

 

This is based on nothing but my own thoughts and ideas.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have to consider human activity cycles as well.  If a Squatch knocks a tree over in the forest and no one is there to see it, is there a sighting?  The cycles are a combination of human and Squatch variables.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JDL, Thanks, good point. Lots of feedback against this idea but, hey that's why we are here. Sometimes it's good to get this kind of stuff out for consideration by the community. Might be good if the two graphs could be enlarged? If so would it separate out the definition a bit more? A counterpoint might be that Human activity cycles bring the creature around as well. Even with Humans present there will be no sightings without a Sasquatch- unless we get into the age old mis-identification discussion. But you are ultimately right, it's a combination of the two.

Edited by hiflier
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/18/2017 at 6:55 PM, norseman said:

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

 

I emailed a request for information about dead bears and cougars found in the wild to the WDFW. This is the answer I received from a biologist in Wenatchee.

 

Quote-

 

Thanks for the note.  We do keep track of every known mortality statewide.  But outside of legal kills, poaching (not many), and roadkill we only see 1-2 unexplained deaths for bear and cougar per year.  Cougars are much more territorial than bears so it’s likely there are more undocumented deaths due to fighting that we don’t know about.  They also die from injuries sustained during prey acquisition (like getting gored by an elk antler) about but finding them is a challenge.  Bears die for other [reasons] too, but they live a much more gentle lifestyle being omnivores vs an obligate carnivore like a cougar.  So short answer is yes we do keep track, but the tally is very low, and certainly not complete.

 

Thanks for your interest.  Hope this helps

 

**********************************

Bear & Cougar Specialist

 

End Quote

 

So if we calculate those numbers with respect to cougar and bear population numbers we end up with 0.1 % of the estimated 2000 cougars in the state of WA and 0.008% of the est. 25,000 bears in the state. That is if 2 dead animals are found. Also, as he mentions, an omnivore like a bear is less likely to be found and we still don't know how bigfoot treat their dead. So from his answer I would say that the likelihood of finding a bigfoot body is very low even if they aren't buried. Regardless of how healthy I think the bigfoot population is in the state there are probably less than 2000. If we use that number and the dead bears found percentage we would end up with  0.16 bodies found per year or one every 6 or 7 years. In that period of time bones are scattered, buried in the forest floor or just plain gone. That is with 2000 individuals. That puts it in perspective, which is what I was trying to do.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's an awesome follow up BTW. And I concur that natural deaths are hard to find for those species.

 

My only concern is fossils. We would expect to find some sort of fossils of them, in Siberia, Alaska or points south if that was their point of entry in NA.

0

Share this post


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