Ideal Bigfoot Conditions?

[Guest]

To continue the analysis presented in post #12 above, I look at the county-level BFRO reports. (I was convinced, in part, to toss BC because the BFRO database doesn't provide a county-specific breakdown for provinces, and I'm not even sure if provinces have counties or something equivalent.)

As an initial screen, I take those counties in the three most squatchy states -- WA, OR, and CA -- that have at least 20 reports. There are 17 such counties:

• Pierce, WA -- 54 reports
• Skamania, WA -- 53
• King, WA -- 42
• Humboldt, CA -- 42
• Tuolumne, CA -- 36
• Snohomish, WA -- 36
• Grays Harbor, WA -- 34
• Lewis, WA -- 34
• Siskiyou, CA -- 30
• Del Norte, CA -- 27
• El Dorado, CA -- 24
• Clackamas, OR -- 24
• Shasta, CA -- 24
• Trinity, CA -- 22
• Josephine, OR -- 21
• Yakima, WA -- 21
• Los Angeles, CA -- 20.

2000 Census data are once again used for human population and land area in each county. The report density, reports/mi², and relative rank (17 is high) for each county are as follows:

• Pierce, WA -- 0.032, 17
• Skamania, WA -- 0.032, 16
• King, WA -- 0.020, 14
• Humboldt, CA -- 0.012, 6
• Tuolumne, CA -- 0.016, 11
• Snohomish, WA -- 0.017, 12
• Grays Harbor, WA -- 0.018, 13
• Lewis, WA -- 0.014, 10
• Siskiyou, CA -- 0.005, 1
• Del Norte, CA -- 0.027, 15
• El Dorado, CA -- 0.014, 9
• Clackamas, OR -- 0.013, 8
• Shasta, CA -- 0.006, 4
• Trinity, CA -- 0.007, 5
• Josephine, OR -- 0.013, 7
• Yakima, WA -- 0.005, 2
• Los Angeles, CA -- 0.005, 3.

The report frequency, in reports per human population, and relative rank are as follows:

• Pierce, WA -- 0.000077, 5
• Skamania, WA -- 0.005369, 17
• King, WA -- 0.000024, 2
• Humboldt, CA -- 0.000332, 10
• Tuolumne, CA -- 0.000661, 13
• Snohomish, WA -- 000059, 3
• Grays Harbor, WA -- 0.000506, 12
• Lewis, WA -- 0.000496, 11
• Siskiyou, CA -- 0.000677, 14
• Del Norte, CA -- 0.000982, 15
• El Dorado, CA -- 0.000154, 8
• Clackamas, OR -- 0.000072, 4
• Shasta, CA -- 0.000147, 7
• Trinity, CA -- 0.001689, 16
• Josephine, OR -- 0.000277, 9
• Yakima, WA -- 0.000094, 6
• Los Angeles, CA -- 0.000002, 1.

Giving equal weight to the two metrics and summing their relative ranks generates the following rank sums (34 is the maximum possible, 2 is the minimum possible):

• Skamania, WA -- 33
• Del Norte, CA -- 30
• Grays Harbor, WA -- 25
• Tuolumne, CA -- 24
• Pierce, WA -- 22
• Lewis, WA -- 21
• Trinity, CA -- 21
• El Dorado, CA -- 17
• King, WA -- 16
• Humboldt, CA -- 16
• Josephine, OR -- 16
• Snohomish, WA -- 15
• Siskiyou, CA -- 15
• Clackamas, OR -- 12
• Shasta, CA -- 11
• Yakima, WA -- 8
• Los Angeles, CA -- 4.

Per the above, I might expect, based on the best possible (albeit flawed) data available to me, that parts of Skamania and Del Norte counties represent source bigfoot habitat.

An entire county is still a very large, nonhomogeneous land mass. Pierce County, for example, includes downtown Tacoma and the top of Mt. Rainier -- neither of which would seem to be anything near good bigfoot habitat.

Pteronarcyd

Edited March 1, 2011 by Pteronarcyd

[Guest]

Great mathematical work Pter.

Not much math to it -- just the simplest of algebra.

However, I'm inclined to believe BC is more "squatchy" than your findings lead on. Lower human population density = higher bigfoot population density. This is a linear equation I have always believed to exist.

My model is perhaps as simple as one can get, so there's plenty of room for refinement. However, ecologists generally estimate populations by recording observations of animals, observations of spoor, trapping-marking-releasing-and-recapturing, etc. I'm unaware of how one can arrive at a high population estimate based on a lack of observations. That would seem to lead toward concluding that Hawaii is the ultimate source habitat for bigfoots.

BC, out of the provinces and states that Pter analyzed, to my knowledge, has the largest supply of fresh water. I expect Bigfoot to be a big fish fanatic. Living off of insect larvae just doesn't seem like it would do it.

More importantly, many of the 17 potentially squatchiest counties border salt water: Snohomish, King, Pierce, Grays Harbor, Del Norte, and Humboldt. And, most of the others likely host salmon runs, which provide low hanging fruit in terms of a protein source. I don't think there's a shortage of water in any of these counties.

Pteronarcyd

[Guest]

...and many of the sightings in BC just go unreported is my guess.

Do you have reason to think that there is a cultural difference between Canada and the US in regard to bigfoot encounter reporting? Bigfoot journalism began in BC with John Green. I think Canadians and Americans have much more in common than they have in differences.

Pteronarcyd

[Guest tracker]

They seem to be very adaptable, considering the various climates and terrain from sighting reports.

[Guest]

1) It appears that their densities were never really high, even in ideal habitat (for example, like black bear populations)

Top level predators never have high population densities. There just isn't that much biomass to support large populations of them. Regardless, if densities have never been high, why is a stable, low density population evidence of a coming extinction?

2) Despite human encroachment into their prime habitat, we still haven't come upon or actually kill a specimen

There is plenty of evidence of humans coming upon a bigfoot -- reports, photos, films, DNA. There are reports of an individual having been killed. There was evidence of massive killings of passenger pigeons and they became extinct because of it? So now few or no killings have become a cause of extinction?!

3) There has been no good quality photographic evidence since the Patterson event

Does this mean the population peaked in the late 1960s?

4) Great ape populations worldwide are in decline

Says who and why? Even if true, why would this apply to a North American ape?

5) Old growth forests of the PNW that appear to be their ideal habitat have largely been cut down/altered

Old growth forests have a dearth of food sources, for people at least. The majority of Indians of the Pacific Northwest made a living fishing, not hunting in the old growth forests. An easy argument can be made that logging old growth increases food sources by increasing the light impinging upon the ground and enhancing habitat diversity.

There seems to be a romantic notion subscribed to by many herein that bigfoot is going extinct. It would be nice to have a stitch of evidence to support such notion.

Sincerely,

Pteronarcyd

[Guest Sallaranda]

Not much math to it -- just the simplest of algebra.

My model is perhaps as simple as one can get, so there's plenty of room for refinement. However, ecologists generally estimate populations by recording observations of animals, observations of spoor, trapping-marking-releasing-and-recapturing, etc. I'm unaware of how one can arrive at a high population estimate based on a lack of observations. That would seem to lead toward concluding that Hawaii is the ultimate source habitat for bigfoots.

There isn't enough factual evidence, not enough control variables, and not enough data to refine the current mathematical structure of your model. But I agree that it's a pretty simple model - a good start, nonetheless. Take my compliment!

Obviously, population estimates for Bigfoot have to be done in a bit of a different manner than other, known, animals. My simple equation obviously is just a general trend that I believe to exist and is rooted in the belief that Sasquatch is afraid of man.

More importantly, many of the 17 potentially squatchiest counties border salt water: Snohomish, King, Pierce, Grays Harbor, Del Norte, and Humboldt. And, most of the others likely host salmon runs, which provide low hanging fruit in terms of a protein source. I don't think there's a shortage of water in any of these counties.

Pteronarcyd

Curious trend that they border salt water, because I really don't believe the Ocean is an important part of Bigfoot's lifestyle. Regardless, this could do for some further research.

Sal

Edited March 1, 2011 by Sallaranda

[Guest]

To continue the analysis presented in post #12 above, I look at the county-level BFRO reports. (I was convinced, in part, to toss BC because the BFRO database doesn't provide a county-specific breakdown for provinces, and I'm not even sure if provinces have counties or something equivalent.)

As an initial screen, I take those counties in the three most squatchy states -- WA, OR, and CA -- that have at least 20 reports. There are 17 such counties:

• Pierce, WA -- 54 reports
• Skamania, WA -- 53
• King, WA -- 42
• Humboldt, CA -- 42
• Tuolumne, CA -- 36
• Snohomish, WA -- 36
• Grays Harbor, WA -- 34
• Lewis, WA -- 34
• Siskiyou, CA -- 30
• Del Norte, CA -- 27
• El Dorado, CA -- 24
• Clackamas, OR -- 24
• Shasta, CA -- 24
• Trinity, CA -- 22
• Josephine, OR -- 21
• Yakima, WA -- 21
• Los Angeles, CA -- 20.

2000 Census data are once again used for human population and land area in each county. The report density, reports/mi², and relative rank (17 is high) for each county are as follows:

• Pierce, WA -- 0.032, 17
• Skamania, WA -- 0.032, 16
• King, WA -- 0.020, 14
• Humboldt, CA -- 0.012, 6
• Tuolumne, CA -- 0.016, 11
• Snohomish, WA -- 0.017, 12
• Grays Harbor, WA -- 0.018, 13
• Lewis, WA -- 0.014, 10
• Siskiyou, CA -- 0.005, 1
• Del Norte, CA -- 0.027, 15
• El Dorado, CA -- 0.014, 9
• Clackamas, OR -- 0.013, 8
• Shasta, CA -- 0.006, 4
• Trinity, CA -- 0.007, 5
• Josephine, OR -- 0.013, 7
• Yakima, WA -- 0.005, 2
• Los Angeles, CA -- 0.005, 3.

The report frequency, in reports per human population, and relative rank are as follows:

• Pierce, WA -- 0.000077, 5
• Skamania, WA -- 0.005369, 17
• King, WA -- 0.000024, 2
• Humboldt, CA -- 0.000332, 10
• Tuolumne, CA -- 0.000661, 13
• Snohomish, WA -- 000059, 3
• Grays Harbor, WA -- 0.000506, 12
• Lewis, WA -- 0.000496, 11
• Siskiyou, CA -- 0.000677, 14
• Del Norte, CA -- 0.000982, 15
• El Dorado, CA -- 0.000154, 8
• Clackamas, OR -- 0.000072, 4
• Shasta, CA -- 0.000147, 7
• Trinity, CA -- 0.001689, 16
• Josephine, OR -- 0.000277, 9
• Yakima, WA -- 0.000094, 6
• Los Angeles, CA -- 0.000002, 1.

Giving equal weight to the two metrics and summing their relative ranks generates the following rank sums (34 is the maximum possible, 2 is the minimum possible):

• Skamania, WA -- 33
• Del Norte, CA -- 30
• Grays Harbor, WA -- 25
• Tuolumne, CA -- 24
• Pierce, WA -- 22
• Lewis, WA -- 21
• Trinity, CA -- 21
• El Dorado, CA -- 17
• King, WA -- 16
• Humboldt, CA -- 16
• Josephine, OR -- 16
• Snohomish, WA -- 15
• Siskiyou, CA -- 15
• Clackamas, OR -- 12
• Shasta, CA -- 11
• Yakima, WA -- 8
• Los Angeles, CA -- 4.

Per the above, I might expect, based on the best possible (albeit flawed) data available to me, that parts of Skamania and Del Norte counties represent source bigfoot habitat.

An entire county is still a very large, nonhomogeneous land mass. Pierce County, for example, includes downtown Tacoma and the top of Mt. Rainier -- neither of which would seem to be anything near good bigfoot habitat.

Pteronarcyd

Del Norte, Siskiyou, and Humboldt counties all connect with each other. Trinity County abutts Humboldt on its eastern edge. Combined, these counties account for quite a large number of BFRO sightings.

[Guest gadgetgurl]

Do you have reason to think that there is a cultural difference between Canada and the US in regard to bigfoot encounter reporting? Bigfoot journalism began in BC with John Green. I think Canadians and Americans have much more in common than they have in differences.

Pteronarcyd

Yes, I do. My family and friends in Northern California were much more likely to talk about Bigfoot than my Canadian family and their friends. It is anecdotal, but yes I personally think there is a subtle difference in attitude regarding BF. I'm not sure why, but there you are.

[Huntster]

Great statistical work! I strongly agree with your findings.

Huntster, on 28 February 2011 - 06:23 AM, said:

1) It appears that their densities were never really high, even in ideal habitat (for example, like black bear populations)

Top level predators never have high population densities.

Actually they do in their finest habitat. For example, Prince of Wales Island has an extremely high density of black bears, and other areas of North America have densities even higher than that. I quote from the 2008 Black Bear Management Report, ADFG, page 70:

Density estimates of North American black bears vary between 0.3 and 3.4 bears/mi2, depending on the region and habitat conditions. At the high end, a Washington state study in forested Sitka spruce habitat that included logged areas comparable to POW resulted in the 3.4 bears/mi2 estimate (Lindzey and Meslow 1977).

Elsewhere, Modafferi (1982) estimated 1 bear/mi2 in eastern Prince William Sound, Alaska. Density estimates from forested habitat in Minnesota using biomarker mark-recapture methods resulted in higher values than we estimate for Unit 2, ranging from 4-6 bears/mi2 (Garshelis 1989). The highest black bear density estimated in forested habitat outside of Alaska, Minnesota, or Washington was in Verginia and ranged from 0.96-1.49 bears/mi2 (Carney 1985).

I believe that ideal black bear habitat is also ideal sasquatch habitat, and the high density Washington sasquatch reports along with Washington's high black bear densities support that belief.

There just isn't that much biomass to support large populations of them.

Again, there is in the finest habitat. The PNW salmon runs support high bear numbers. Ditto Kodiak Island and it's incredibly high brown bear densities.

Regardless, if densities have never been high, why is a stable, low density population evidence of a coming extinction?

For the same reason that mountain gorillas are endangered?:

Mountain gorillas live in islands of mountaintop habitat in a sea of human settlement.

2) Despite human encroachment into their prime habitat, we still haven't come upon or actually kill a specimen

There is plenty of evidence of humans coming upon a bigfoot -- reports, photos, films, DNA. There are reports of an individual having been killed. There was evidence of massive killings of passenger pigeons and they became extinct because of it? So now few or no killings have become a cause of extinction?!

No, the incredibly few reports are evidence of a very, very low density species. Again, the BFRO (the largest database of sasquatch reports, which even includes reports from well over 100 years ago) only includes about 6,000 reports.

There are many thousands of brown bear sightings in Alaska each and every year, and brown bears are not exactly hiding behind every tree, even here.

3) There has been no good quality photographic evidence since the Patterson event

Does this mean the population peaked in the late 1960s?

Maybe. Note that 1968 was the subject year of John Green's Year of the Sasquatch book.

But this is for sure; after the Patterson filming, the incredible series of Bluff Creek sasquatch events stretching from 1958 through 1968 dried up quickly. Did the group there leave the area? Die off?

Dunno. Nobody does.

[Huntster]

4) Great ape populations worldwide are in decline

Says who and why?

Environmental groups, probably in order to scare folks into more donations for legal wrangling.

Even if true, why would this apply to a North American ape?

Because a North American ape is so rare that they aren't even established as existing by science. This constitutes a density so low that it's mere existence is in question, much like a species that has already gone extinct.

5) Old growth forests of the PNW that appear to be their ideal habitat have largely been cut down/altered

Old growth forests have a dearth of food sources, for people at least.

One can assume that animals that find PNW forests as prime habitat did not evolve over the past 30,000 years in forests that are clear cut in cycles. Some animals may be able to deal with such resource harvest well (black bears). Some might not (sasquatches). We just don't know.

The majority of Indians of the Pacific Northwest made a living fishing, not hunting in the old growth forests.

Correct. But when aboriginal peoples went home after fishing, it was to a created shelter, not an old growth forest which the salmon stream meandered through.

All great apes prefer dense forested habitat. I fail to see why a North American ape would be different.

An easy argument can be made that logging old growth increases food sources by increasing the light impinging upon the ground and enhancing habitat diversity.

That argument can certainly be made, and it may well be true for some species.

And it could also not be true for others.

We just don't know about the habitat needs of sasquatches. The Bluff Creek events indicates to me that they prefer areas with little to no human activity. The arrival of the logging industry is when their exposure to humanity intensified, and in a decade, they simply disappeared.

There seems to be a romantic notion subscribed to by many herein that bigfoot is going extinct.

No romance about it. It's a theory based upon:

1) Their obvious low densities

2) The obvious expansion of man's influence on their prime habitat

3) The similarities with other great apes (habitat, densities, and sensitivity to man) worldwide

4) The fact that science doesn't even recognize the species as existing yet, which amounts to de facto extinction

Indeed, that isn't a very "romantic" series of thoughts at all, is it?

It would be nice to have a stitch of evidence to support such notion.

Frankly, it would be nice to have actual proof that the species exists in the first place and hasn't already gone extinct.

[gigantor]

2000 Census data are once again used for human population and land area in each county. The report density, reports/mi², and relative rank (17 is high) for each county are as follows:

And this is where your analysis errs.

The number of reports per state/county on the database represent a long period of time. The 2000 census is a static number valid only for that year...

For your analysis to be valid, you need to chose only those reports from the year 2000 or a reasonable window around that year.

You may be able to easily accomplish that by looking at the google earth ksm file for bigfoot sightings, they are gps/time coded.

Edited March 1, 2011 by gigantor

[Guest]

They seem to be very adaptable, considering the various climates and terrain from sighting reports.

Yes, they do seem to be highly adaptable, but most encounters likely occur in sink (i.e., suboptimal) habitats. The question at hand is: What is their ideal (i.e., source) habitat?

[Guest]

There isn't enough factual evidence, not enough control variables, and not enough data to refine the current mathematical structure of your model. But I agree that it's a pretty simple model - a good start, nonetheless. Take my compliment!

Well, thank you, but I wasn't being humble, just honest. One simple refinement would be to examine counties in other states beside those I evaluated. There might be some squatchy counties back east or down south, but I didn't see any in OK, OH, or TX with 20 or more reports (which is an arbitrary cutoff).

Obviously, population estimates for Bigfoot have to be done in a bit of a different manner than other, known, animals. My simple equation obviously is just a general trend that I believe to exist and is rooted in the belief that Sasquatch is afraid of man.

I agree with you to the extent that in a squatchy county I wouldn't be looking for them in the midst of high density human habitation. Interestingly, BFRO is saying that the edges of human habitations are good places to look, as they believe bigfoots have adapted to scrounging human garbage.

Curious trend that they border salt water, because I really don't believe the Ocean is an important part of Bigfoot's lifestyle. Regardless, this could do for some further research.

I'm thinking salt waters, especially estuaries, are generally more productive than fresh waters. Plus, fresh waters on the left coast may have salmon runs, but those salmon pack on their pounds in the salt water. Think about it -- where do human commercial fishermen spend most of their time and effort, salt waters or fresh waters? Hint: all of the reality commercial fishing shows are on salt waters.

Pteronarcyd

[Guest]

Del Norte, Siskiyou, and Humboldt counties all connect with each other. Trinity County abutts Humboldt on its eastern edge. Combined, these counties account for quite a large number of BFRO sightings.

Don't forget that Shasta Co. abuts Trinity. Thus, CA has five of its eight squatchiest counties forming a contiguous land mass of 17,831 mi², with a human population of 374,604, having 145 BFRO reports.

WA's seven squatchiest counties all form a contiguous land mass of 16,171 mi², with a human population of 3,412,140, with 274 BFRO reports.

Northwestern CA looks to be a fine place to look for bigfoots and for their source habitat, but the central and southern Cascades of WA, with a thumb protruding west to the Pacific Ocean, looks to be good, too. Regardless, compiling counties defeats the purpose of looking at each county separately. Skamania and Del Norte counties still appear to be the best bets.

One thing that the WA compiled area has that the CA compiled area doesn't is a major metropolitan area, Everett-Seattle-Tacoma in the counties of Snohomish, King, and Pierce. Given that the two compiled areas are roughly equivalent in area, my model says the area with the lower population is better habitat if the number of reports is identical. However, the WA area has almost twice the reports and 10-times the population, which is to be expected if more eyes and ears mean more reports. One benefit of the metropolitan development is it helps eliminate areas for investigation, assuming paved areas don't make good bigfoot habitat.

Interestingly, OR has no contiguous land mass of squatchy counties; in fact, it has only two squatchy counties. What is it that seems to make OR mostly suboptimal habitat for bigfoots?

Pteronarcyd

[Guest]

Yes, I do. My family and friends in Northern California were much more likely to talk about Bigfoot than my Canadian family and their friends. It is anecdotal, but yes I personally think there is a subtle difference in attitude regarding BF. I'm not sure why, but there you are.

Because I've never discussed bigfoot with a Canadian in person, and because some of the most closed minds here are Canadian, I'll take your word for it.

Does Canada have counties?

Pteronarcyd