Population Pockets

[bipedalist]

....That goes to show you how much forest is in the state...cause I've never seen one of them fall.

Yah, COGrizz they were probably saying that the day most of Michigan lost it's trees too (see Drew's documentations in another thread).

Re: blue tick.....The blue tick is a very vocal, dedicated and bull-headed hunting dog.... keen sense of smell; they can sometimes be very goofy if made into a pet too. They are very funny looking to me also, I've lived with one briefly. It's not a Plott bear-hound or Karelian bear dog, but they are trustworthy and mission-bound.

[norseman]

Yah, COGrizz they were probably saying that the day most of Michigan lost it's trees too (see Drew's documentations in another thread).

Re: blue tick.....The blue tick is a very vocal, dedicated and bull-headed hunting dog.... keen sense of smell; they can sometimes be very goofy if made into a pet too. They are very funny looking to me also, I've lived with one briefly. It's not a Plott bear-hound or Karelian bear dog, but they are trustworthy and mission-bound.

Plotts are ok.......but they don't tree as hard. Karelians are a eastern angle of approach being apart of the Laika family to hunting. Dunno, would have to go out with some Russians or Finns and see.......

Del Cameron used Blue Ticks...........with one especially cool story of his big Blue Tick that knocked a bear out of a tree that was climbing up after Del.

http://www.americanhoundsmen.com/cameron.html

I've owned Redbones and Treeing Walkers..........and have been around Blue Ticks. I like them.

[bipedalist]

Dogs that knock bears out or off of trees, have got the right stuff for sure. Add dedication to the list of blue tick features then.

[Guest COGrizzly]

Whoa whoa whoa folks! Let's just put the kabash on the dog derail right now!

(I do not like dogs - been bit twice and saw my buddies face bitten - from a dog he had known for 5 years) Great, now that I admitted that openly, I'll be "unfriended" by 90% of you all!

[norseman]

Whoa whoa whoa folks! Let's just put the kabash on the dog derail right now!

(I do not like dogs - been bit twice and saw my buddies face bitten - from a dog he had known for 5 years) Great, now that I admitted that openly, I'll be "unfriended" by 90% of you all!

Will do.

But I first must say that a hound dog would never.......ever bite you...........ever. They are the most loving dog I have ever been around. If you are really a cat? I cannot vouch for your safety.........

[Guest COGrizzly]

Hound dog eh? Ok, since I've known ya for a long time, I'll trust your judgement and if I ever get a dog, it'll be a hound dog. BTW, grew up with the best dog I have ever known, a black brown and white collie. Shep was awesome. I've just seen too many instances of otherwise.

I had a cat for 18 years. Ended up loving the stupid thing. She died in a house fire almost one year ago. She was cranky like an old, unloving grandmother. My girlfriend from college wanted her and somehow, I ended up with "Nalla". Still, not a fan of dogs. No cat has killed an infant this year.

[Guest Cowlitz2]

Thanks BobbyO I will drop them a line at ridgewalkers@ymail.com to see what they are doing in that regard....

[BobbyO]

This is the biggest single reason of why i think populations will never be accurately known.

C-A-N-A-D-A

& BC specifically.

A brilliant link for those who are unsure of just how vast it is..

http://www.bcrobyn.com/2012/12/how-big-is-british-columbia/

[Redbone]

I didn't actually read this whole thread but since we're talking about hound dogs I have to show mine.

This is Hunter...He is a big baby. Extremely friendly.

Edited December 20, 2012 by Redbone

[Guest]

Bump for an interesting thread that I haven't looked at for a while.

This is the biggest single reason of why i think populations will never be accurately known.

C-A-N-A-D-A

& BC specifically.

I could do ten separate 100 yard walking transects in appropriate BC habitat, count how many Sasquatches I see on each one, add them up and then multiply by, say, 100,000 to compensate for my limited transect observable areas.

On transect one, I observe zero Sasquatches. On transect two, I observe zero Sasquatches. . . etc. Multiply zero observations by 100,000 and I get. . . zero Sasquatches in BC.* (For COGrizzly, this technique works for Colorado brown bears too!!!!)

Tongue in cheek, sorry, but some more appropriate version of this (counting bedding nests or foot trackways per study area over a long enough sample time or direct individual censusing thru DNA typing of scats, again per study area) might work.

We modern humans are pretty clever monkeys. Even the field zoologists. Never say never in science, once the mainstream starts paying attention. That's the key missing factor.

*Statistically speaking, Sasquatch BC numbers are probably closer to zero than if I saw by chance one Sasquatch on one of my transects. 1 x 100,000 = 100,000 Sasq in BC (instead of, say, a couple thousand, which is closer to zero than 100,000). So in that sense, my ten 100 yard transects method with the result of zero probably is within some acceptable confidence level I bet, and fairly accurate. Statistically speaking. Just not very useful or informative. Science is wacky sometimes.

Edited February 22, 2013 by tsiatkoVS

[norseman]

This is the biggest single reason of why i think populations will never be accurately known.

C-A-N-A-D-A

& BC specifically.

A brilliant link for those who are unsure of just how vast it is..

http://www.bcrobyn.c...itish-columbia/

If anyone has ever driven the ALCAN? They already know this......in fact BC FEELS bigger than Alaska. Simple because Alaska has a limited road system.

And BC is way prettier than Alaska IMO. I live 30 miles from there and my grandfather was Canadian. Great place.

[Guest]

What i want to know is, and i'm talking WA State and small pockets of populations instead of grouping the US all together, if we are to believe for arguments sakes that Derek is on the money give or take 10 either way, is 40 - 50 animals in an approximate 100 mile x 100 mile area enough to keep a healthy breeding population going or would people think ( or know would be better ) that the OP animals would have to have interaction with other " clans " from other parts of WA and also maybe OR in order to keep a healthy breeding population ?

Part 1

A 100x100 sq.mi. area is a lot bigger than many would logically think when it comes to the Pacific Northwest mountains. The elevations involved on the OP range from sea level to thousands of feet. I would venture a guess that it could contain up to 5000 square miles of wilderness. Not all of this would be usable to a reclusive primate, not wishing to interact with humans but still requiring similar resources. But back to population numbers first.

Humans can and do live in highly concentrated pockets of population, really overburdening their immediate surroundings. They have had to develop the means of efficiently bringing resources into these areas. Early populations of humans were different in that their resources were at hand (farms, ranches). The higher the population per given area, the more technical the population became in obtaining and transporting their resources. The communication and interaction between neighboring populations.

Population size determines proximal resource usage. If a specific resource is linked directly to a species, monitoring that resource provides data on population size. So, what kind of resources are we talking about when it comes to Sasquatch?

Water would be one. The deduction that John Green made concerning rain fall amounts and sightings seems to fit. Not only would the creature need to drink water, other animals and plant matter they consumed would also require water. Unfortunately, water consumption by Sasquatch is not a very useful tool here.

Vegetation. Some plant material could be used for food and shelter. Browsing by deer is readily visible, even when their population numbers are not significantly high. Cougar kills are not as visible, in fact cougars feed many times on the same kill, hiding it between feeding times. They stay very close to their cache. Scientists study these kills, monitoring them for activity because they indicate many important things about a population through the study of an individual. Bears feed on a variety of vegetation like berries and Cambrian layers of trees. It would be hard to look at berries and say a bear was feeding on them without other evidence, but trees stripped and scared with claws is another thing. No other animal leaves marks on trees like they do. Vegetation may be a population tool we an use, whether it be a food resource or for shelter. Bears have made use of vegetation for shelter in ways that would make most of us wonder when discovering a usage site. There have been many allegations that Sasquatch use vegetation in the same way; beds, nests, shelters, etc. it isn't outside the realm of possibilities.

Food. What kind of food resource could be utilized by a Sasquatch, or even a population of Sasquatch, that would go unnoticed? In the Pacific Northwest that could be a couple of animal species. Small rodents being fed on would easily go unnoticed. Maybe something as large as fawns and calves from deer and elk, respectfully. Fawns and calves are also a mainstay for bear and cougar. Fish are another resource that could easily go unnoticed. Shellfish are plentiful but would leave long lasting tailing evidence. I have seen these a lot in the hills close to the ocean. Abandoned orchards, or raids on active ones might go misidentified as being perpetrated by other animals like deer. Food reminds me of the Malaysian Sasquatch equivelent and Durian fruit.

[Midnight Owl]

Having personally seen how these subjects are masters of using cover and concealment, reported sightings are not even close to revealing actual population numbers in a particular area. Also take into account that the reported sightings are a slim number to the actual eye witnesses accounts that have never been reported to anyone. Case in point:

I have come a full circle and am now a bit more guarded as to who I share and discuss the Bigfoot subject with. After my first visual sighting, for a time, I wanted to tell everyone! I eventually got tired of all the crap some folks shovel your way once they find out you believe they exist. With that said, I cautiously shared a bit of my expeirences with a distant friend at a recent social function. He just sat there listening with an odd expression on his face. When I finished, I could tell he was really thinking about something. He finally began to share something that happened to his family nearly 50 years ago in south central California that few if any folks have heard.

They were farmers living near the city of McFarland, CA. It is an area of flat farming land with orchards, vinyards and ranches. Yes the mountains are nearby, but not the area you would even suspect Bigfoot activity, yet this man and hius family had a very different experience few people have heard. The family was all sitting around the supper table when there came a loud thud which shook the wood framed ranch house. Then the roof began creaking as something heavy moved about on it.

My friend was about 12 years old and remembers he and his Dad going outside to check on what the sound was with a dim flashlight. It was just about dark, when they saw a large tall figure standing on the corner of the house. His Dad called out the figure, which then leaped from the house into a nearby tree. From there the figure lleaped again into another tree then dropped to the ground and ran off.

My friend recalls feeling his hair stand up from the sudden terror as this large figure cleared about 30 feet between jumps. His Dad told him later it was probably just a hobo looking for something to eat or steal, but this figure was huge, yet very agile. His Dad never mentioned it again, but the outdoors in the orchards and vineyards were never the same for him after that. He knew no one was capable of this feat.

This is just another case in point of stories throughout the U.S. which will never be told or publish. I have personally heard more than dozen from folks over several years. Many more will never be told. Other areas and places you just don't expect this, but people have and will see them....

[Guest]

Great story, Julio. That is north of Bakersfield and about 75 miles south of where I live, also about 20 miles from the foothills of the Sierra Nevada. I live only about 10 miles from where the foothills really start, and I have no doubt the whole of the eastern side of the Central Valley is bf habitat.

[Guest]

Part 2

Procreation. If we could make some assumptions on mating behavior, from other successful species we might be able to take away from them some tools for discovery. In all of my studies the reproductive male organs have been all but visible. The grapefruit sized testes that others speak of must be from more recent encounters I am not familiar with. The Sasquatch seem to be more like Gorillas that the other great apes in this respect. This would indicate that a visual cueing of sexual nature is not a requirement or has played a less important role in their evolution. It is rarer to see solitary Gorillas in the wild than it is to see chimps, the same holds true for the solitary Orangutan. Is this related to their size? Enviornment? Probably both. Groups of animals that congregate together have a harder time doing so in heavy undergrowth and forested terrain than open country sides. Animals that group up do so for a couple of reasons. They are prey and require amicable social bonding with other members.

Sasquatch are rarely if even reported in large congregations. They seem, for the most part, solitary beasts, except for the rearing of young. This behavior mimics more the life strategies of North American bears than the other great apes, except for maybe the Orangutan. If the animal is real, my guess would be to assume they have a similar life strategy as to the successful bear populations here, but with some of the limitations of primates. Bears can endure significant amounts of trauma to their bodies. Obtaining food and mates that present large energy expenditures and danger are not so much a problem for them. This could be the limiting factor for Sasquatch... They can't afford to take the same chances in obtaining mates or food.

My model has the creatures sparsely populating habitable regions that have a minimum of human influence, contiguous green ways to other ranges containing other members, open un-monitored moving water sources, and food supplies that are so plentiful their browsing would go unnoticed. I think that an individual female range would be smaller than a males, maybe as much as 5x. I don't think the females attract males when they still have young trailing behind, indicating that breeding maybe slower than even with humans. I think males might call safe areas as large as 200 sq mi, and females around 50, located between the males range. For a male to cross over these ranges, say from the OP, all the way down to Oregon or California seems very unlikely. We would have seen something like this, something quite different than the sightings we have on record.

Yes there are underground culverts on major highways that migratory animals utilize to travel by, but those are monitored with cameras. Bear, deer and elk, but no Sasquatch have been observed. That would mean they need to cross highways in the open, cross a few large bodies of fast moving water. The water crossing scenario has been observed, rarely, but it has been seen. Maybe this is a third factor of water. A place to choke point crossing observations on camera. Highway crossings to have been seen, both are rare occurrences.

I think an OP population would only travel south as far as the Columbia River, turn east, if at all, to mingal with populations as far as the Mt. Saint Helens area, and back sometimes. Crossing the river would be an act of desperation on their part. Crossing the Juan de Fuca Straight is almost a certainty of being impossible. Crossing Puget Sound to the Cascades lowland is unlikely as well. The OP is isolated except for the 150 mile wide corridor connecting it with the Mt. Saint Helens area for an animal that is reclusive, low in population numbers, and ovoids dangerous and high energy outputs for resource material (food, mate). Shelter and water are in abundant supply in the PNW.