Leaderboard

Regarding habitat, I think the assumption that suitable habitat has decreased is based in a flawed, subtly anthropocentric, view of what that habitat CAN be, which, in turn, is rooted in ape-camp thinking about what sasquatch is. One of the questions we should always ask is "If I went feral, where would I get resources?" The answer could sometimes be "just as far from other people as I can get", but at other times, the availability of resources which are just cast-asides from the general population may be the difference between life and death overriding the urge not to be seen. Thus we have reports of dumpster diving, crop raiding, etc. I have to agree with LCB, though ... for the most part, sightings are closely related to contiguous cover, water, food ... travel corridors if not home areas. Occasionally there's an outlying, non-conforming data point. Those can be interesting to study. They might be hoax, they might be misidentification, but if legit, they might give us deeper insight. MIB

I don't understand why people want to believe that squatch are declining at the same time that deer are overpopulating and other major predator species (cougar, wolf, coyote, etc.) are not only rebounding back, but moving into areas where they had once been eradicated. Bigfoot aren't spotted owls, overly specialized and dependent upon a very specific niche habitat. They are as adaptable as humans based on reports, perhaps more so, and I'll bet that there is not a single member on this forum who has had an actual encounter (interaction, not just a sighting), who believes that they aren't masters of any environment they choose to occupy.

I agree that population corresponds to habitat, and that habitat is essential to have any population present. I have suggested that I think about 3-5 creatures might inhabit a 300-500 mile area, that might be less or greater as it corresponds to the type of habitat present. No matter how we add it up, we cannot come up with a very large population of these creatures, at least not by any metric I see. Sighting data is certainly misleading, it is based on human population and presence. So the more humans present the more sightings will occur. That is where humans come into contact with the proper habitat of this creature. It would not take a very large population to account for the number of sightings we have on file, in fact that seems to indicate small numbers, say less than 10,000. When we consider that the mountain gorilla population is something around 500 world wide, well maybe the Sasquatch population is much smaller than thought. The notion that the population has increased since the 1950s corresponds to increases in deer and elk herds since that time, as well as habitat restoration. I hope you do complete your research and present some of it here, it is always enlightening to look at the matter on paper with statistical data. I have done some plotting myself concerning my region, it amazed me the similarities of habitat for each sighting and the correspondence to rivers and streams. It also pointed out that some movements seem to occur, and very possibly the same creatures being seen from north to south and east and west. If that number was 3 creatures, then those three have been detected fairly regularly, which gives credence to the notion that these creatures are not quite as elusive as some suggest, only elusive in the fact there are so few of them to search for....

Regarding the claim that the Bigfoot population has increased since the 1950s, or within any time frame for that matter, I don't think we have enough quantifiable analysis of reliable data to make any such assertion without a great deal of hesitation. And so it is with a great deal of (understated) hesitation that I report that my own preliminary work in this area suggests that the Bigfoot population is not growing and is in fact under threat. While undertaking a preliminary analysis (following the analytical method of Glickman) of Bigfoot sightings at the county level, I plotted the probable Bigfoot populations on a map, and immediately discovered evidence of population fragmentation--namely, areas that must have been contiguous at some point in the past, but no longer are. Fragmentation is, of course, a well understood threat to any animal species, and a loss of habitat results almost universally in a decrease in population. If subsequent analysis bears out the results of my preliminary work, then I can say that the Bigfoot population is certainly not what it used to be when the populations were geographically contiguous. When this decline happened, and if it continues at the present day, is another question. I have some other Bigfoot-related work to finish up before I move on to something that could produce more definitive results on this question. Hopefully I can get to it within the coming year.

The observations that the creatures have a hunched over posture and glide is true. That they break large sticks in descending mtns or make noises resembling such a thing is true. That they are not as reclusive as believed, they are interested in following certain humans for some reason (s). That they seem to appear, traipse around tents and then disappear before sometimes getting a glimpse is true. That they have the ability to make rock knocks, guttural clicks and samurai-type almost human-like language with intonations, inflections and prosody/rhythm that would make you think they are an intelligent being is true. That there is some anomaly to their visual systems that produce green glow and other phenomenon is true. That they push over trees or make noises that would have you think they are pushing over a tree when they want to gain your attention or discourage your further progress following a certain vector is true. That they can, when they have the need, produce a type of chatter that sounds distinctly chimp-like is true. That they growl, whoop and produce rapid changes in naturalistic and mimicked animal sounds interpersed with speech-like phonations is true. That they make elaborate and geometrically correct stick formations some which have a toy-like quality and artistic expression is true. That they are pranksters and leave gifts is true. I think I will stop there or I will have written my book on the forum for Pete's sake.