Guest COGrizzly Posted November 17, 2012 Posted November 17, 2012 Total guess here, but I would think there are .... 1. 5-15 Sasquatches in the Flattops Wilderness area. 2. 5-15 in the Holy Cross Wilderness area. 3. 5- 15 in the Wemincuche (sp) area. 4. 5- 15 in the Southern San Juan Wilderness area. 5. 5 - 15 in the Pikes Peak area. 6. 0 in the eastern CO plains area. Probably less than 100 grizzlies throughout the entire state...
gigantor Posted November 17, 2012 Admin Posted November 17, 2012 within 50 mile radius of Pike's Peak...
Guest COGrizzly Posted November 17, 2012 Posted November 17, 2012 (edited) Nice work gigantor, thanks. ETA - also seems to coincide with BobbyO's and Keith Foster's elk and deer migration patterns. Edited November 17, 2012 by COGrizzly
Guest Posted November 17, 2012 Posted November 17, 2012 BobbyO, I think the numbers here are low because, for one thing, I think there have to be hundred in my own California county, here. Which is dry and barren compared to the OP. OP much better for them and we know sightings correspond to rainfall. This is a big county, 6000 square miles. Two major rivers cominig down out of the Sierra, the Kings and San Joaquin. Some largish lakes up in the mountains. Fed by reservoirs in the foothills, there are over a hundred (120?) canals. About a third of ithe county is in the mountains. So plenty of water supplys all over the place despite the climate. In the valley we have lots of fruit, nuts, and row crops. Everything from apricots to corn to pistachios to zucchini. The crops ripen at all different times of year and the rivers feature good trout fishing. From sign I have seen I know they are along the rivers, it's a given. Up in the mountains, too. Down in the vally, the canals provide water routes or maybe transportaton, or if they are dry, at least a road of sorts in a ditch, making it hard to find you. I see some indications they live also along canals. I deduce an average of about 8 in my regular spot, more in some times of the year, less in others. I do wonder how much food they need, but it's hard to say. It's all guesswork, anyway. And we just have no idea, to get real. You can hardly even see the dang things, and they are freaky sneaky. They are subtle. Most people totally MISS a lot of evidence because they are looking DOWN. And they are too ready to say, oh it's a shadow, oh it's a bear. The opposite of perestroika or whatever it is. You have "There is a sasquatch face on my toast" and then you have "That is a shadow. Probably. The smell is leaves decomposing. The noise is not a sasquatch because sticks and branches do naturally follow you and break all by themselves on a windless day, happens alla the time, and rocks have been known to jump up and come flying past your head because of the wind." I think more people have the denial when it's there than see it when it's not. I say it would be interesting to see what Bob Myozinski spelt wrong says because he is a wildlife biologist and and an old hand at this.
BobbyO Posted November 17, 2012 SSR Team Author Posted November 17, 2012 Cool KC, good post. And you're right about the OP, it is perfect habitat and the number could well be higher than the guesstimate of 50, doubtl or even triple that number maybe. COG, those numbers you give, if they are roughly correct, would those sort of numbers be enough to sustain a healthy breeding population, they seem very low given the sort of habitat you've got out there and the fact that another " not there " animal ( Grizz ) would be around the 100 mark ? G, 700 for WA is very possible, it is on the high side for me but it isn't out of the realms of possibility, no way. You've got those 5 pockets of definite populations in my opinions, what the numbers are within those we don't know, then also there may be other pockets in other areas of course. You've also got SW WA which certainly has sufficient habitat for another population pocket. Interesting stuff..
Guest TexasTracker Posted November 17, 2012 Posted November 17, 2012 Bobby O, Read this article this morning and thought I should pass it along. This long-time researcher operating in BC (Sunshine Coast) discusses 5 groups. http://www.duaneburnett.com/6857/sasquatch-sunshine-coast-bc
Guest JiggyPotamus Posted November 17, 2012 Posted November 17, 2012 (edited) As far as I know, I am the only person who seems to believe that the majority of population estimates are extremely low. For instance, I've heard the total population listed at 10,000 for North America, but in my opinion that number is way too low, even for just the continental US. I hold the belief that the sasquatch population was very large before the arrival of Europeans, and subsequently declined due to disease and possibly other unknown factors. So I think the population has been on the rise for a centuries now. It is possible that the population never was on a decline, and has been increasing since it was first established as well. I think sightings are increasing as a result of this. So what is happening is the sasquatch population is bursting from the inside of their territory to the outskirts. Sasquatch are being pushed from the more populated sanctuaries that are already claimed, to the fringes of cities and towns. The only other explanation for their presence in these areas would be their necessity for food, which also may indicate some evidence of my hypothesis, considering they would not be needing food from outside of the forest, unless their population was so large that competition forced them to seek nourishment elsewhere. Although I will admit the possibility of these animals looking for easier, more calorie-packed foods than what the forest can provide. That is always a possibility, however, what would these animals be doing so close to civilizations if they do not want to be around humans? This is part of why I believe they have no other choice, because their population is on the increase, dramatically. So most of the numbers that are given for a state's sasquatch population are much too low in my opinion. These animals are just that good at avoiding people in the woods, thus they are seen closer to cities and towns as they are forced more and more out of their element. It is much easier for them to predict the movements and even intentions of people when those people are in the forests, as opposed to wooded areas on the outskirts of civilizations...Or in the population centers themselves. Edited November 17, 2012 by JiggyPotamus
bipedalist Posted November 17, 2012 BFF Patron Posted November 17, 2012 Rick Noll and others have always alluded to the possibility that there could be Sasquatch in many if not most watersheds with available habitat. It is pretentious to think that anyone really knows how many Sasquatch there could be though. Sighting reports and habituations show that they have no problem moving through and living around small established towns and population centers with riparian, estuarine and/or wetland or montane habitat. It seems that opens up a pretty big swath of continental watershed to me.
Guest gershake Posted November 17, 2012 Posted November 17, 2012 Very interesting thread. Plus to the OP.
Guest Posted November 17, 2012 Posted November 17, 2012 ome of us … wouldn't mind, for once, to have a thread that's not questioning the existence of the animal, but actually trying and attempting to possibly understand parts of it by hopefully sharing ideas and infomation. I see ideas. Where's the information?
Guest Posted November 17, 2012 Posted November 17, 2012 (edited) Where do people get population numbers for a species that is said to exist in most of North America but has never been scientifically described? It's true it is guestimate. But, scientists are not LOOKING for them, therefore they will not FIND them, nor see them. It's up to us to get that information however we can. I took a four hour round-trip drive out into the hills today and back (OK< they'd be "mountains" to the rest of the country, lol) and thought "Gee, there's soooo much land out here" where they could be. I could have passed a hundred and never seen them or known about it here in the wilderness of Oregon. It's amazing to think of. And I've also lived in Washington, California, Nevada and Montana and spent a lot of time in Northern Idaho (and vacationed regularly in the San Juan Islands up near BC). It's amazing how much wilderness is still out there on this side of the country. I've also spent several months in Maine, Pennsylvania and Colorado and driven from Oregon to Maine (and back) within the last 2 years. Our beautiful country is freakin' HUGE. Maybe this is why I'm optimistic, I've driven a whole lot of it recently and worried a whole bunch about my van breaking down in all these middle of nowhere places, lol!!! Edited November 17, 2012 by madison5716
Guest wudewasa Posted November 17, 2012 Posted November 17, 2012 But, scientists are not LOOKING for them, therefore they will not FIND them, nor see them. Scientist applying for grants will not receive money if they say that they will use money to find sasquatches.
Guest Posted November 17, 2012 Posted November 17, 2012 (edited) Actually I made a typo in my post -- I meant to say hundreds....maybe 300 or 400 in my county. If you looked at the human animal from the outside and posited populations on our planet, I doubt you guess our actual teeming bzillions. So, think about it, how can we guess the numbers of our hairy cousins when we cannot even lay a hand on one? Or see one well? I read somewhere that their numbers are about the same as bear. If that is true, there are plenty of them. Can't find it! arrrgh Thing is, most estimates are going to err on the low side. Why? Because if you can't come up with a specimen and can't prove it's out there, low population numbers give you an out, an excuse. Well, there are many of them, you know........It's rare. Bah. And if you pretend to be scientific, you are going to err low because you don't want to look like a moron. Yes, folks, not only are they real, but there are TONS of them. How does that sound? Even BFRO doesn't want to come off as too loony. They guess low for the same reasons. I don't care how I sound--I want to be polite, but I don't care if I conform to the conventional wisdom. You all know that by now. I say there are a great many of them and their numbers would astound us all. Edited November 17, 2012 by Kings Canyon
Explorer Posted November 18, 2012 Posted November 18, 2012 I read somewhere that their numbers are about the same as bear. If that is true, there are plenty of them. Can't find it! arrrgh Thing is, most estimates are going to err on the low side. Why? Because if you can't come up with a specimen and can't prove it's out there, low population numbers give you an out, an excuse. Well, there are many of them, you know........It's rare. Bah. Kings Canyon, I dug the population estimate of Black Bears and Cougars in CA, OR, and WA and summarized them in the link below. The sources for these estimates is also in the attachment. http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?/topic/34514-cougar-and-bear-attacks/ Black Bear population estimates for CA, OR, and WA are 25,000, 28,500, and 26,250 respectively. Cougar population estimates for CA, OR, and WA are 5,000, 5,700, and 2,200 respectively. What I don't understand from all the estimates provided above for BF population, is why are they so low. I am not a wildlife biologists and have no clue of how to make an argument on population from biology. But, I can always use analogy. I have never seen cougars and seen bears 3 times in CA, but these populations are 5,000 and 25,000 each. Could we use these ranges as upper bounds, and then rationalize the estimate downward? For sure the upper bound should not exceed 25 K in CA (given that they need as much food as a bear but with less frequent sigthings). But, if we believe they are a predator like a cougar but need more food (bigger size), then the upper bound would be 5 K in CA and their numbers would be probably lower than cougars.
Recommended Posts