Losing The Faith....

[Huntster]

Huntster, on 23 November 2010 - 12:53 PM, said:

That is all true, and I agree that the American wilderness is much larger, deeper, and wild than most appreciate. However, I still believe that sasquatch numbers are low and declining.

Huntster: I'm curious why you feel this way.

1) If there were more of them, they would have ended up being discovered by now

2) There are only about 6,000 reports filed by BFRO, and those date back well over a century. This is what would be expected from a rare animal

3) The mountain gorilla is in a similar situation: limited range, few in number (only 700), and escaped discovery until 1902

4) The number of reports appear to be static or even rising, the quality of these reports has gone down. This conforms with both the Glickman report density theory, and the report density overall, and that is seen when comparing sasquatch reports to the reports of other rare animals.

Sighting reports are going up each year are they not?

I don't know. Are they?

And if so, is it because of our wonderful private organizations collecting, collating, filing, and releasing such information, or is it because there are more sasquatches?

Need a professional biologist, do ya'?

Other animals in our wilderness areas are also increasing in numbers recently. Why would this not be true for sasquatch also?

Other North American mammals are increasing in numbers. This is because they are very intensively managed.

That is clearly not true of sasquatches, despite my repeated citations that they should be.

Certainly man hasn't been killing them or poaching them down.

Polar bears have been illegal to hunt in the United States since 1966, and their numbers are higher than ever before recorded. Only Alaska Natives can hunt and kill them.

So why are they now considered "endangered"?

[Guest River]

1) If there were more of them, they would have ended up being discovered by now

True statement. Perhaps there are none.

2) There are only about 6,000 reports filed by BFRO, and those date back well over a century. This is what would be expected from a rare animal

3) The mountain gorilla is in a similar situation: limited range, few in number (only 700), and escaped discovery until 1902

I wonder how many sightings/reports there were for mountain gorillas before they were discovered officially? I remember a few but I'm not so sure if the local governments kept track of that or not. That would be an interesting number to have.

4) The number of reports appear to be static or even rising, the quality of these reports has gone down. This conforms with both the Glickman report density theory, and the report density overall, and that is seen when comparing sasquatch reports to the reports of other rare animals.

Yeah, I know you like the Glickman report. One could say the ever increasing boundaries of man could be reponsible or rare animal sightings. Especially so if they have a small limited habitat range. Not so much as a widely distributed animals as the sightings/reports of sasquatch apparently has though. It would seem that there is a fairly wide distribution and habitat range for this alleged species. Can we agree to that? How large of a range and habitat would you give the sasquatch? (example: only PNW, only one mountain range located in the PNW or 3 or more states, all 50 states etc) Also, why would you choose these areas over the other sighting reports? How were those reports determined to be more credible?

I don't know. Are they?

And if so, is it because of our wonderful private organizations collecting, collating, filing, and releasing such information, or is it because there are more sasquatches?

Need a professional biologist, do ya'?

Seems like there are a few qualified people who have/are already investigated/ing this.

Jeffrey Meldrum (born 1958) is an Associate Professor of Anatomy and Anthropology and Adjunct Associate Professor of the Department of Anthropology at Idaho State University. Meldrum is also Adjunct Professor of Occupational and Physical Therapy and Affiliate Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology at the Idaho Museum of Natural History.

Grover Sanders Krantz (November 5, 1931 – February 14, 2002) was a professor of physical anthropology at Washington State University

John A. Bindernagel (b. 1941) is a wildlife biologist who has sought evidence for Bigfoot since 1963

Dr. Melba S. Ketchum grew up in Texas City, Texas. She is a Moody Scholar and attended Texas A&M University where she received her doctorate in Veterinary Medicine after five years at the university. She had a mixed veterinary practice until she founded DNA Diagnostics.

Dr. W. Henner Fahrenbach, Ph.D

John Mionczynski wildlife biologist

(edited to add, I had about 6 other links in here but it didnt show up in the post)

Other North American mammals are increasing in numbers. This is because they are very intensively managed.

That is clearly not true of sasquatches, despite my repeated citations that they should be.

How would you know that? If we cant discover it/catalog it how would you know they would be decreasing or increasing? Sighting reports? Still no validated evidence of its existence so clearly there is no way to determine other than those reports. So theoretically speaking since the other animals are increasing in number, why wouldn't the sasquatch also? Seems like the food supply and habitat is suiting other animals just fine. Large and small alike.

Other North American mammals are increasing in numbers. This is because they are very intensively managed.

That is clearly not true of sasquatches, despite my repeated citations that they should be.

First comes authentic evidence of its existence, then the money and scientists will study it. Again, which comes first in the case of say the mountain gorilla you used as an example earlier? The body came first. There were reports and sightings before that time, but until the body came there was no protection status or real money going into the management. It won't be any different for this alleged animal, and why should it? (i can hear you starting to say, because it may be a relative of man in retort already! haha) It also might be man.

Polar bears have been illegal to hunt in the United States since 1966, and their numbers are higher than ever before recorded. Only Alaska Natives can hunt and kill them.

So why are they now considered "endangered"?

You should ask your local or federal wildlife office that question and see what they tell you. I'm not currently in charge of those decisions.

Edited November 24, 2010 by River

[Huntster]

Huntster, on 23 November 2010 - 03:13 PM, said:

1) If there were more of them, they would have ended up being discovered by now

True statement. Perhaps there are none.

Yup. Maybe the wildlife authorities should have shown up when Patterson published his movie footage.

But they didn't, did they?

4) The number of reports appear to be static or even rising, the quality of these reports has gone down. This conforms with both the Glickman report density theory, and the report density overall, and that is seen when comparing sasquatch reports to the reports of other rare animals.

Yeah, I know you like the Glickman report. One could say the ever increasing boundaries of man could be reponsible or rare animal sightings. Especially so if they have a small limited habitat range. Not so much as a widely distributed animals as the sightings/reports of sasquatch apparently has though.

That's where Glickman comes in:

The relationship in the clustered data is the correlation between population density and frequency: the Group A correlation of +0.9661 is high relative to the Group B correlation of +0.1244.

A second relationship in the clustered data is the correlation between population and frequency. When Group A is separated from the dataset, its correlation to population rises from +0.1192 to +0.5664.

Group A is differentiated from Group B by its high correlation to population density. This is consistent with the model of receiving a report of a cataloged animal (Eq. 1).

Let's assume that manufactured reports will be uniformly distributed across the population. If the rate of manufactured reports is constant, then the frequency of reports should correlate to population. To some degree, this is seen in Group B. There may be other unidentified influencing factors such as mean media exposure to Bigfoot, which may influence the density of manufacturing. The author speculates that Group A and Group B represent different phenomenon. Group B may represent manufactured reports because of the correlation to population, whereas Group A may represent a different phenomenon because of its correlation to population density. The author hypothesizes that if Green's data is the superposition of multiple phenomena that this is the expected result.

Pretty basic statistics.

It would seem that there is a fairly wide distribution and habitat range for this alleged species.

That is only if you cannot accept Glickman's "unidentified influencing factors such as mean media exposure", which, for example, can clearly be seen after the events of Bluff Creek, circa 1958-1968. It can also be seen after the Barney and Betty Hill alien abduction story in the mass media.

Can we agree to that?

Nope. I do not accept sasquatches continent wide, at least today.

How large of a range and habitat would you give the sasquatch? (example: only PNW, only one mountain range located in the PNW or 3 or more states, all 50 states etc)

Coast Range from Eureka to Yakutat, with a nearly extinct sub-population in the Sierras (probably gone by now), and young males ranging out occasionally eastward into the western Rockies. That is a liberal estimation. Total population now somewhere between 300 to 800 individuals. Probably less.

Also, why would you choose these areas over the other sighting reports?

Report densities and history in relation to human population.

How were those reports determined to be more credible?

Report densities and history in relation to human population. This is identical to current professional wildlife management techniques with respect to bears in certain habitats.

Read this. Pay special attention to the paragraphs where bear population numbers are estimated.

[Huntster]

I don't know. Are they?

And if so, is it because of our wonderful private organizations collecting, collating, filing, and releasing such information, or is it because there are more sasquatches?

Need a professional biologist, do ya'?

Seems like there are a few qualified people who have/are already investigated/ing this.

Jeffrey Meldrum (born 1958) is an Associate Professor of Anatomy and Anthropology and Adjunct Associate Professor of the Department of Anthropology at Idaho State University. Meldrum is also Adjunct Professor of Occupational and Physical Therapy and Affiliate Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology at the Idaho Museum of Natural History.

Grover Sanders Krantz (November 5, 1931 – February 14, 2002) was a professor of physical anthropology at Washington State University

John A. Bindernagel (b. 1941) is a wildlife biologist who has sought evidence for Bigfoot since 1963

Dr. Melba S. Ketchum grew up in Texas City, Texas. She is a Moody Scholar and attended Texas A&M University where she received her doctorate in Veterinary Medicine after five years at the university. She had a mixed veterinary practice until she founded DNA Diagnostics.

Dr. W. Henner Fahrenbach, Ph.D

John Mionczynski wildlife biologist

And their funding?

Other North American mammals are increasing in numbers. This is because they are very intensively managed.

That is clearly not true of sasquatches, despite my repeated citations that they should be.

How would you know that?

That othere wildlife (grizzlies, elk, moose, deer, bison, wolverines, ect) are intensively managed and sasquatches aren't?

Maybe I just pay attention?

If we cant discover it/catalog it how would you know they would be decreasing or increasing?

If they're so rare than we can't catch one to catalog it, how could you not realize that they're rare and likely decreasing in number?

Sighting reports? Still no validated evidence of its existence...

And still no effort by the appropriate authorities to validate it's existence.

so clearly there is no way to determine other than those reports.

No s**t? So why not begin determining what is so painfully obvious?

[Guest COGrizzly]

I've been lucky enough to see a Wolverine in 2004 right here in Colorado. According to the CDOW, wolverines, wolves and grizzlies are not suppose to exist in Colorado. But they do (exist here).

[Huntster]

So theoretically speaking since the other animals are increasing in number, why wouldn't the sasquatch also?

Because all other large North American mammals are being very intensively managed, and sasquatches are not.

Seems like the food supply and habitat is suiting other animals just fine. Large and small alike.

Yet each and every one of them have their very own management plan (funded by both state and federal government.........Read and learn).

Other North American mammals are increasing in numbers. This is because they are very intensively managed.

That is clearly not true of sasquatches, despite my repeated citations that they should be.

First comes authentic evidence of its existence

There is already plenty of evidence.

then the money and scientists will study it.

Like the Corp of Discovery and the Moon Race, the money came first in order to fund the discovery.

This should be no different.

Again, which comes first in the case of say the mountain gorilla you used as an example earlier? The body came first. There were reports and sightings before that time

Please provide a reference to the "reports and sightings" of mountain gorillas prior to 1902.

I'll wait patiently.............

Polar bears have been illegal to hunt in the United States since 1966, and their numbers are higher than ever before recorded. Only Alaska Natives can hunt and kill them.

So why are they now considered "endangered"?

You should ask your local or federal wildlife office that question and see what they tell you. I'm not currently in charge of those decisions.

Then you aren't in charge of the decision to fund a sasquatch census, are you?

[Guest]

Other North American mammals are increasing in numbers. This is because they are very intensively managed.

That is clearly not true of sasquatches, despite my repeated citations that they should be.

Polar bears have been illegal to hunt in the United States since 1966, and their numbers are higher than ever before recorded.

In Texas, White Tailed Deer are managed to the extent that there is an open season to hunt them. Even after thousands of hunters have gotten their limit, each year, the White Tailed Deer still proliferate.

Texas has no season on sasquatches. You would think that they would be proliferating without the worry of getting shot.

Wildlife management isn't the problem, nor the answer, to a viable sasquatch population.

[Huntster]

Huntster, on 23 November 2010 - 03:13 PM, said:

Other North American mammals are increasing in numbers. This is because they are very intensively managed.

That is clearly not true of sasquatches, despite my repeated citations that they should be.

Polar bears have been illegal to hunt in the United States since 1966, and their numbers are higher than ever before recorded.

In Texas, White Tailed Deer are managed to the extent that there is an open season to hunt them. Even after thousands of hunters have gotten their limit, each year, the White Tailed Deer still proliferate.

Perhaps you lack the other predators we have here?: Wolves & bears, and plenty of them?

Maybe your other predators aren't being managed well?

Texas has no season on sasquatches.

Nor does any other wildlife management area.

You would think that they would be proliferating without the worry of getting shot.

There is a lot more to viable wildlife populations than just human hunting. Again, polar bears haven't been hunted in Alaska by non-Natives since 1966 (44 years). There are more than ever before, but the USFWS, in their ultimate wisdom, has declared them threatened.

Wildlife management isn't the problem, nor the answer, to a viable sasquatch population.

I believe you are partially correct.

The lack of management may well be the reason why an endangered species may go extinct.

There are plenty of examples of species on the brink that are still around. The California condor was reduced to just 22 birds when the already intensive management intensified more. Now there are nearly 400 birds in existence.

Management works, and the lack of management bears opposite results.

[Guest]

So has Bill Green in the woods behind his apartment and he has found the same amount of tangible evidence.

That's just over the top.

[Guest]

That's just over the top.

I agree completely, but I had just been talking to him and he was on my mind. Get well soon Bill!

[Guest]

Don't let it get you down, concentrate instead on how much you've grown by learning all that cool stuff about wolverines!

Sas,

Always looking on the bright side I see. I do not know how I missed this gem of a post earlier.

Cheers,

Polypodium

[Guest]

Are you saying that wolverines, brown bears, and wolves don't hide from man?

That is all true, and I agree that the American wilderness is much larger, deeper, and wild than most appreciate. However, I still believe that sasquatch numbers are low and declining.

Well, I would say that the way sasquatch hide, is vastly different from the way the above do. Such as giving a warning to other sas in the area that humans are nearby. Or sometimes when hiding and observing the human being aware of their presence, will 'tease' the human with small noises like breaking tiny branches. Kinda like a kid might do to get a reaction.

So why such a dim view of their populations? I don't understand. Is it out of frustration from looking and looking and not having an encounter? Heck, I've got a friend who has been in the woods all his life and shot 60 elk in that time (not 30 as I once previously noted in error), and he's never seen or heard anything that could be considered squatchy. Yet his step daughter who sometimes recreates in the woods has seen two of them. It makes no sense as to why some people see them and some don't. That is part of their mystery.

I don't know, I'm just grasping at straws to try to figure out why you feel there are so few of them? But if you are relying on just formal reports, well that's probably not a very reliable means either. I know numerous people who haven't filed a report with anyone even tho they've had sightings or encounters. Heck, I haven't filed reports at any time in history with any group either, not even bfro. So if you are relying on reports to gauge their population, there is your first mistake.

Your next may be the comparison you are making of them to other mammals or primates. They aren't like a mountain gorilla. They think like we do. They plan. They coordinate & communicate with one another, and no not like a few wolves will coordinate a kill.

So in asking the question of why you feel they are so rare, do you feel they are just some giant ape? Cause if so, then I suppose that answers the question. Are you expecting a giant ape to behave much like Mountain Gorillas, and thus be seen more if there were more? This is just a hypothesis based on a number of your statements, so please correct me if I'm wrong.

As for wildlife management, I find myself developing different feelings on that. Here in Oregon, the game mammal populations are seriously low. I haven't gotten a deer in several years, they are just more and more difficult to find. That seems to be the norm for many hunters I know. That or they are becoming smarter and evolving more effective ways of eluding humans? Maybe the Sas are teaching them now? lol Actually, I sometimes wonder if Sas are partly responsible (at a significant level) for the deer population decline in the region. Being Sas are so highly elusive as I know them to be, then there too I would see no correlation between their numbers and deer, other then Sas have been eating well. But if there were a serious crash in the deer population, I'm sure Sas would find alternatives due to their higher intelligence. (Like raiding more farms during the night). Elk numbers aren't doing much better, but I understand their behavior much better then deer and do well finding them. Had fresh elk this evening. Point again is, comparing Sas to the sighting of other populations probably isn't a reliable population indicator Hunster.

As for the California Condor, here's a cool little tidbit. I moved to Oregon in 1981. In about 83, a few friends and I went to Eastern Oregon to do some rabbit hunting near a place called Fort Rock. Here we are driving through the high desert and come to an intersection. In front of our eyes, this giant bird opens up its wings. It had a good 10 foot wingspan and white patches on the underside. We knew what it was because we had seen them in California where we had grown up. But we didn't realize at the time just how significant it was to see a Condor this far north of their alleged solely existing population along the California coast of Big Sur. Nobody reported anything then. I have since but that was like reporting bigfoot to local authorities. lol I still wonder if there is a viable population in a remote region of eastern Oregon. If so, its not something that the 'experts' accept.

Huntster, your conclusions about their populations may be incorrectly influenced by one or more other conclusions you have.

Edited November 24, 2010 by PragmaticTheorist

[Huntster]

Huntster, on 23 November 2010 - 12:53 PM, said:

Are you saying that wolverines, brown bears, and wolves don't hide from man?

That is all true, and I agree that the American wilderness is much larger, deeper, and wild than most appreciate. However, I still believe that sasquatch numbers are low and declining.

Well, I would say that the way sasquatch hide, is vastly different from the way the above do. Such as giving a warning to other sas in the area that humans are nearby.

Never heard wolves, huh? That's okay. Few have.

I've heard them "talking" to each other for hours on end.

Or sometimes when hiding and observing the human being aware of their presence, will 'tease' the human with small noises like breaking tiny branches. Kinda like a kid might do to get a reaction.

Never been stalked by a bear, huh? That's okay. Few have.

I've had bears hang around for hours just out of sight, circling my camp, breaking sticks, huffing, etc.

Testing me. "Kinda' like a kid might do to get a reaction."

I passed the test.

So why such a dim view of their populations?

Logical deduction of the facts.

I don't understand. Is it out of frustration from looking and looking and not having an encounter?

Nope. I've never hunted for a sasquatch. I'm a bit too much of a realist to engage in such an exercise.

Heck, I've got a friend who has been in the woods all his life and shot 60 elk in that time (not 30 as I once previously noted in error), and he's never seen or heard anything that could be considered squatchy. Yet his step daughter who sometimes recreates in the woods has seen two of them. It makes no sense as to why some people see them and some don't. That is part of their mystery.

Yup.

But if you are relying on just formal reports, well that's probably not a very reliable means either. I know numerous people who haven't filed a report with anyone even tho they've had sightings or encounters. Heck, I haven't filed reports at any time in history with any group either, not even bfro. So if you are relying on reports to gauge their population, there is your first mistake.

It can't be a mistake, because that is all we have: testimony and trace evidence. Those are the same tools that professional biologist use in some habitats to estimate bear populations. It is a common way to estimate some wildlife population densities.

Your next may be the comparison you are making of them to other mammals or primates. They aren't like a mountain gorilla. They think like we do. They plan. They coordinate & communicate with one another, and no not like a few wolves will coordinate a kill.

You may be underestimating the intelligence of gorillas and wolves. Indeed, try reading about wolf trapping. They are difficult to trap because they are so smart.

But I can believe that sasquatches are more intelligent than both gorillas and wolves. However, even men can be captured, shot from afar, caught in traps, etc. The fact that sasquatches have not is testament to their low numbers as much as it is to their intelligence.

So in asking the question of why you feel they are so rare, do you feel they are just some giant ape? Cause if so, then I suppose that answers the question. Are you expecting a giant ape to behave much like Mountain Gorillas, and thus be seen more if there were more?

Pretty much, yeah. If there were 20,000 sasquatches in the United States, we'd have one on a slab by now.

As an example, there are an estimated 35,000 to 40,000 brown bears in Alaska, and Alaska has 75% of the brown bear population of North America (23% in western Canada, and 2% in the Lower 48 states). Seeing a brown bear in Alaska is rather commonplace, but by no means guaranteed on every jaunt into the woods. Still, hundreds are shot by people every year.

Seeing a brown bear in Arkansas in the wild isn't going to happen.

Get it? Know why? Because there are lots of brown bears in Alaska (even though there are few people), and even though there are lots of folks in Arkansas, there are no brown bears to see.

Edited November 24, 2010 by Huntster

[Huntster]

As for wildlife management, I find myself developing different feelings on that. Here in Oregon, the game mammal populations are seriously low. I haven't gotten a deer in several years, they are just more and more difficult to find. That seems to be the norm for many hunters I know. That or they are becoming smarter and evolving more effective ways of eluding humans?

There are likely lots of reasons why you don't see them. Managers sometimes actually try to funnel hunters into areas where there is nothing to shoot. You'll have deer all over the city parks where you can't hunt, and just out of town there won't be a deer anywhere in the area...........until after the rut (and open hunting season).

Or you may have a plethora of lions eating the deer up. Indeed, I think Oregon (like California) banned hunting lions with dogs, which dramatically increased lion populations, which will put pressure on deer numbers.

Or a severe winter will kill off a bunch of deer, and it might take a few years for the populations to rebound.

Elk numbers aren't doing much better, but I understand their behavior much better then deer and do well finding them.

Elk numbers are higher throughout much of the West due to............intensive management. When my father-in-law was living in Utah in the 1950's and 60's, elk and moose populations there were almost gone. Essentially, there was no hunting them. Then came "once-in-a-lifetime" permits.

Now the elk are everywhere.

Point again is, comparing Sas to the sighting of other populations probably isn't a reliable population indicator Hunster.

Of course not. But comparing the management of other animals to the lack of management of sasquatches is very responsible and just.

As for the California Condor, here's a cool little tidbit. I moved to Oregon in 1981. In about 83, a few friends and I went to Eastern Oregon to do some rabbit hunting near a place called Fort Rock. Here we are driving through the high desert and come to an intersection. In front of our eyes, this giant bird opens up its wings. It had a good 10 foot wingspan and white patches on the underside. We knew what it was because we had seen them in California where we had grown up. But we didn't realize at the time just how significant it was to see a Condor this far north of their alleged solely existing population along the California coast of Big Sur. Nobody reported anything then. I have since but that was like reporting bigfoot to local authorities. lol I still wonder if there is a viable population in a remote region of eastern Oregon. If so, its not something that the 'experts' accept.

Which just shows that the problem isn't just bigfoot. Wildlife managers apparently like to ignore people generally.

[Guest]

LOL, well have to laugh about the Wildlife managers comment anyhow.

OK so please confirm, is this following response you saying that you believe they are just a giant ape?

Pretty much, yeah. If there were 20,000 sasquatches in the United States, we'd have one on a slab by now.

If that's the case, then I understand your perception now as to why you feel they must be dangerously low in population or they would have been discovered by now. Forgive me, but this really is a major error in perception of the species that people who don't have encounters commonly share. Sasquatch is very foreign to you isn't it?

And yeah, yeah, I realize the bears and wolves and coyotes and ravens and mice and.. all communicate and hide. Still, they, nor we, are the same as Sasquatch in there adeptness in the woods.

Yep we have lots of cats in Oregon, but the population decline began long before the ban on hunting cats with dogs took place. We can still hunt cats with a $5 tag for most of the year. OK it may be $8 now. One of the reasons the wildlife agencies claim for the deer's decline is a hair loss disease, but I'm not so sure. I've got quite a few deer around the house too, but hunting them isn't what I consider hunting. We get a few cats that come through here too but the deer feel more protected near homes I suppose. As for elk, well what's happening in Oregon is long debated. Few hunters get elk, but most don't know how to hunt them either. The herds are definitely down tho, but I still feel there are a lot of them out there based on my success rate over the last 10 years.

Anyway, your relying on wildlife facts and figure comparisons may indeed be where you are going wrong. Heck, who said the bigfoot groups were on the right track?

So why such a dim view of their populations?

Logical deduction of the facts.

It can't be a mistake, because that is all we have: testimony and trace evidence. Those are the same tools that professional biologist use in some habitats to estimate bear populations. It is a common way to estimate some wildlife population densities.

But professional biologists get out to research their subject too. While you're relying on a few groups findings, and putting all these facts & figures together, your not experiencing the species yourself.

I don't understand. Is it out of frustration from looking and looking and not having an encounter?

Nope. I've never hunted for a sasquatch. I'm a bit too much of a realist to engage in such an exercise.

So, a few key elements seem to be surfacing to help understand where you are coming from.

1) You are in the camp that thinks Sas are just a giant ape. No wonder you are basing your judgement on figures and tables and biologist reports. Heck, that testimony and trace evidence of bigfoot, is only a small fraction of all encounters for one thing since such a small faction of witnesses ever report. It could be only around 1% of the total number of encounters out there that are even reported. Most people decline the risk of attention. And we may only read about 10% of the total number of encounters to an org like bfro that aren't thrown out by researchers who themselves underestimate the species and discard them because of stuff they don't believe.

So there ya go. You are in the Ape camp (no offense intended), and you've never searched for them. No wonder you conclude such low numbers. You are putting together all these facts and figures to validate your conclusion that they must be numbered very low, but you are missing that one component of how Wildlife biologists do come up with their numbers. They go into the field with the express purpose of actively researching the topic of their study. They understand the behavior of their subject from personal observation. You on the other hand are working with black n white numbers and ignoring field experience of researchers since you aren't out there yourself. Many researchers are encountering them, you do realize this right?

You may need to get out and smell the roses Huntster or you will always just see them as this unfathomable creature.