Ideal Bigfoot Conditions?

[Guest gadgetgurl]

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

BC has districts. I think there's counties in the East.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_districts_of_British_Columbia

[Guest]

Hunster,

Thanks for the compliment, although "great" is taking it too far.

That's a boat-load of bears on Prince of Wales Island -- should be one around every other tree or so. Any reports of bigfoots there? I will admit that it shows high level predators can occur at high densities in optimal habitat, but what if there are behaviors that preclude high density living? If bigfoots live in family groups that chase out the children as they mature, and if they defend their home territory from the intrusion by others of their kind, might that not prevent them from being present at high densities? Plus, I'm assuming a bigfoot is more mobile than a black bear, and can thus easily cover a larger territory.

I've heard the argument that bigfoots and black bears share the same habitat, but how do you suppose they partition that habitat? They can't be competing for the exact same niche, or one would eventually be eliminated or pushed out.

If mountain gorillas are endangered by encroaching human habitation, I don't see that happening in WA. About all of King County, for example, is developed, mostly the western half. The eastern half will always remain pretty wild. The same goes for Snohomish and Pierce counties. Grays Harbor County is mostly undeveloped. And there is no blizzard of human development occurring in Skamania County. There are plenty of wilderness areas, national forest roadless areas, and old growth forests that have been set off limits from logging that ensure bigfoot sanctuary in WA. At least two counties, Skamania and Whatcom, have ordinances prohibiting the killing of bigfoots. I'd say WA is rather bigfoot friendly, and from what I've seen of NW CA, that area is, too.

I assume that the vast majority of potential bigfoot encounters go unreported. Few reports do not necessarily equate to low densities if there are cultural inhibitions about reporting or even talking about the subject (there are), and if the species in question is truly cryptic (i.e., does a good job of hiding from man, which appears to be the case). I suspect there are many more grizzlies in AK than there are bigfoots, and grizzlies don't seem to go out of their way to avoid man to the extent that bigfoots seem to do.

The BFRO database lists 27 encounters for Del Norte County, CA. The first, in 1967, is the Patterson-Gimlin encounter. Twenty-six more are subsequently listed, between 1975 to 2008. That doesn't fit with the idea of encounters drying up in the area.

Hell, I thought you'd gripe about me tossing AK out in the first stage of my analysis. For playing so nicely, let me look at an AK borough. Fairbanks has 5 BFRO reports, but your Prince of Wales Island has 3, so let's look at the island. The Prince of Wales-Hyder census unit has a land area of 7,411 mi², and a human population of 6,126. The reports per area is < 0.001 (worse than Los Angeles County), but the reports per human population is 0.000490 (roughly equal to Lewis County, pretty squatchy). I suppose AK may be under-reported, because I'm guessing many living in remote areas (those most likely to have an encounter?) don't have internet access, and I'm guessing that most BFRO reports these days are submitted via internet.

Sincerely,

Pteronarcyd

[Guest]

Hunster,

Environmental groups are telling me that I am warming the Earth's climate, too. The only organization I hold in less esteem than the typical environmental group is EPA.

Low numbers (rather than low densities) could also explain why a species has not yet been documented, much like a species that hasn't been created yet.

While its true that animals adapted to the primeval PNW forests did not evolve with clear cutting, they did evolve with cyclical fires that perform a similar function -- before Smoky Bear came along. Ecotones, juxtapositions between two biomes (e.g., forest and meadow) are well known to be ecological diverse and productive areas. Perhaps some species don't exploit them well, but I'm thinking most do.

I agree that a North American ape would likely prefer forest, but having a forest with a man-made meadow nearby can't hurt too bad, especially if traffic along the road leading to the new meadow is regulated. If the Piggly Wiggly in Wasilla were to suddenly find a Chilkoot Charlies next door, you might appreciate being able to stop in a Charlies before or after your grocery shopping from time to time, or you might not exploit the opportunity, but would you be harmed (assuming you have no religious revulsion to alcohol or dancing).

We don't know much specifically about habitat needs of bigfoots, but we do know about the habitat where reports of bigfoot encounters come from.

Logging in the Bluff Creek area could have pushed bigfoots out of the area for a while. If a demolition team showed up and tore your house down would you sit down and die or move to a new abode? I'm guessing you'd do the latter rather than opt for Hunster extinction.

Again, I don't think low densities typically contribute to extinctions. Low population numbers can, regardless of population density. A population with low numbers is at a much greater risk of extinction than is a population with large numbers. Again, I don't think there's much new habitat encroachment in the US, for reasons stated previously. I don't think the US has the habitat destruction and poaching problems that exist in Africa, for example.

The fact that science has never recognized the species amounts to pre-creation, not de facto extinction. It has to exist before it can go extinct. Perhaps it will be tomorrow when our higher power will utter, "Let there be bigfoots." That's a romantic thought, isn't it?

I agree proof of existence would be the ultimate achievement at this time.

Sincerely,

Pteronarcyd

[Guest]

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.

Assuming a static population is the least of the errors in my analysis. I addressed the bigger errors in my initial post. I believe most of the BFRO reports are rather modern, and I don't believe state and county populations have changed dramatically in the modern era. However, taking into account changing populations is a way my analysis could be refined. I would estimate the total number of person-years per year over the period in question. Good luck to anyone who attempts this.

The google Earth file is horribly in need of a quality assurance review. During the process of generating one of my posts in this thread I noted a Kitsap County report plotted in King County, close, if not within, the city limits of Seattle. It's not the only erroneous plot I've encountered.

Pteronarcyd

[Guest]

BC has districts. I think there's counties in the East.

http://en.wikipedia....ritish_Columbia

Thanks. Now we just need to get BFRO to acknowledge and incorporate such political subdivisions.

[Guest tracker]

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

Yea we got counties and it depends on where you live. BF is received better out west, rural areas and northern parts of our provinces. If people don't see them on their commute to work when they rush by a strand of trees they don't exist.

JMO. tracker.

[Guest]

What in your opinion are ideal bigfoot living habitats? This thread is meant to be opinionated, so do not start fighting. I would just like you know what YOU think is an ideal bigfoot habitat.

Thanks,

PAKid

Any place that would be ideal for humans or primates. If American Indians live(d) there then it's a good habitat for Bigfoot-type animals. I think the Pacific Northwest would be ideal though because it's so diverse, from oceans to rivers to glaciers, from ferns to Redwoods to high desert.

[BobbyO]

Hell, I thought you'd gripe about me tossing AK out in the first stage of my analysis. For playing so nicely, let me look at an AK borough. Fairbanks has 5 BFRO reports, but your Prince of Wales Island has 3, so let's look at the island. The Prince of Wales-Hyder census unit has a land area of 7,411 mi², and a human population of 6,126. The reports per area is < 0.001 (worse than Los Angeles County), but the reports per human population is 0.000490 (roughly equal to Lewis County, pretty squatchy). I suppose AK may be under-reported, because I'm guessing many living in remote areas (those most likely to have an encounter?) don't have internet access, and I'm guessing that most BFRO reports these days are submitted via internet.

Sincerely,

Pteronarcyd

In which case you'd look for other methods of Reporting, & this Book specifically which i'd say has 20 plus POW Island Reports in it..

Leave the civilised world behind as 'Raincoast Sasquatch' takes you out into the rain-drenched forests of the Pacific Northwest on the trail of a living, breathing species of hominid, unlike any known primate today. Enjoy the mystery as you explore the existence of this elusive creature along the remote coasts of British Columbia and Alaska.

Edit : POW is on the list for either 2011 or definately 2012, Cruise from Bellingham up the inside Passage then fly back.. Ketchikan here i come..

Edited March 1, 2011 by BobbyO

[BobbyO]

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.

4087 as of today in the BFRO Database for the US & Canada..

121 Reports for the 4 Counties you state, which equates to about 3% of the Database..

[Huntster]

That's a boat-load of bears on Prince of Wales Island -- should be one around every other tree or so

There are a lot. I only hunted the island once, it was an early spring hunt (a bit too early; last week of April and first week of May), so we only saw three bears. The good part was that they were all boars and BIG. Didn’t get a shot, though. Too bad. The last one was well over 7’.

Any reports of bigfoots there?

Thanks to Rob Alley, yes, quite a few have been recorded. The important thing to notice is that there is only one in the BFRO database, but Alley records about 50 over the past 60 years.

I will admit that it shows high level predators can occur at high densities in optimal habitat, but what if there are behaviors that preclude high density living? If bigfoots live in family groups that chase out the children as they mature, and if they defend their home territory from the intrusion by others of their kind, might that not prevent them from being present at high densities?

Indeed, that could well be true. Sasquatches may simply not thrive in high densities. In fact, the mere reality that they are obviously not common indicates that they don’t. But we just don’t know.

But if they tend to always live in very low densities, that trait in and of itself makes it more suseptible to endangerment over a species that can.

Plus, I'm assuming a bigfoot is more mobile than a black bear, and can thus easily cover a larger territory.

I’m not so sure of that. ADFG have documented some amazing journeys by wolves, black bears, and brown bears over the past decade that have spanned hundreds of miles as well as incredible open water swims.

But I suspect that many sasquatch sightings in more human habituated areas are due to territorial movements by younger males.

I've heard the argument that bigfoots and black bears share the same habitat, but how do you suppose they partition that habitat? They can't be competing for the exact same niche, or one would eventually be eliminated or pushed out.

I don’t believe that. Indeed, I know of areas where both black and brown bears share habitat.

If the habitat is productive, I believe sasquatches and black bears can thrive together even better than black bears and man.

If mountain gorillas are endangered by encroaching human habitation, I don't see that happening in WA. About all of King County, for example, is developed, mostly the western half. The eastern half will always remain pretty wild. The same goes for Snohomish and Pierce counties. Grays Harbor County is mostly undeveloped. And there is no blizzard of human development occurring in Skamania County. There are plenty of wilderness areas, national forest roadless areas, and old growth forests that have been set off limits from logging that ensure bigfoot sanctuary in WA. At least two counties, Skamania and Whatcom, have ordinances prohibiting the killing of bigfoots. I'd say WA is rather bigfoot friendly, and from what I've seen of NW CA, that area is, too.

All of that is increasingly so today. It wasn’t necessarily so in 1955. So while there are areas where various degrees of “protection†occur, there is still elk, deer, and bear hunting, formerly logged areas, and pockets of human development. This might be enough to ensure some measure of protection for a species that already lives in very low densities, and it might not.

I assume that the vast majority of potential bigfoot encounters go unreported.

That may well be so.

I also believe that the majority of bigfoot reports are erroneous. Judaculla (former BFRO investigator) estimated just 2% of their reports being valid. So, if BFRO lists 6,000 reports, figure just 120 being valid.

Few reports do not necessarily equate to low densities if there are cultural inhibitions about reporting or even talking about the subject (there are), and if the species in question is truly cryptic (i.e., does a good job of hiding from man, which appears to be the case)

However, few reports combined with the lack of fossil evidence, lack of physical proof, and a complete failure to document the mere existence of the species, and we have nearly overwhelming evidence of extremely low densities.

I suspect there are many more grizzlies in AK than there are bigfoots, and grizzlies don't seem to go out of their way to avoid man to the extent that bigfoots seem to do.

You’d obviously be very surprised:

The young male grizzly bear weighed maybe 500 pounds. Over the summer, he scarfed down salmon and ate moose. He spent a few breathless nights chasing bliss with a brunette sow deep in the mountains.

A story from deep in the Alaska wilderness? Not quite.

Almost entirely unseen, Bear 208 roamed the streets and parks of Alaska's largest city over much of last summer and early fall, from East Anchorage across the Hillside to Turnagain Arm. He crossed Tudor Road into densely populated neighborhoods at least once, the movement tracked by a global positioning system device on a collar around his neck. But except for snacking on a few domestic sheep in a South Anchorage back yard and raiding a bit of dog food, the bear, 5 or 6 years old, spurned human edibles in favor of silver and king salmon in local streams.

And he had friends.

A military-funded tracking study of Anchorage grizzly bears found that these large, intelligent omnivores don't just make quick trips to the city's edge and then retreat to some remote wilderness up in the Chugach Mountains.

They spend the summer close to people, largely out of sight in parks and on military land. Some of them seem as adept at urban life as any traffic-savvy moose from the neighborhood.

"It's kind of startling to realize these brown bears are in our midst," said state research biologist Sean Farley, who oversaw the research.

"There is not another city like this in the world that has wild brown bears in this close proximity to people like we have here," he said. "To have bears come in so close to people and not cause problems is really remarkable."

How many bears live in and around Anchorage?

Biologists aren't really sure. About 60 brown, or grizzly, bears are thought to live between the Knik River and Turnagain Arm, with a dozen more foraging in or near town. At least 250 black bears are thought to overlap the area, with a third foraging in or near town……………

………….. "They're not visitors, they're not tourists," said Rick Sinnott, area management biologist with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. "They inhabit the (Anchorage) Bowl just like the rest of us."………..

………… They were most active at night, adjusting to the human world by taking daytime snoozes in jungled enclaves. People rarely, if ever, reported seeing the study bears.

"By and large, they just want to hit the fish and get fat, and get out of town," Farley said……….

……… Among the bears was No. 203, a big brown grizzly that prowled the Eagle River and Ship Creek areas. Farley estimated its size at 1,000 pounds………….

………… At 8:30 p.m. on Aug. 5, the bear was strolling near E. 41st Avenue in a neighborhood west of Boniface Parkway.

"We never got a call," Coltrane said.

On other days, the bear was within yards of Tudor Road in the woods, or lurking in the trees along the Tour of Anchorage Trail. He likely saw, smelled or heard people every day yet stayed away from them. With only about 65 percent of the animal's locations recorded by the collar, the bear almost certainly wandered north of Tudor more than once, Farley said.

"He was checking it out. He was just kind of exploring."

The study, which continues next summer, suggests that Anchorage residents should assume brown bears live near city salmon streams and behave accordingly. Manage garbage properly. Don't sneak through the brush. Use common sense and make noise when hiking.

"The take-home message is there are bears in the woods," Coltrane said. "If you live in an area that's adjacent to natural habitat, then you live in bear country.".

[Huntster]

The BFRO database lists 27 encounters for Del Norte County, CA. The first, in 1967, is the Patterson-Gimlin encounter. Twenty-six more are subsequently listed, between 1975 to 2008. That doesn't fit with the idea of encounters drying up in the area.

Of the 27:

• Seven were of vocalizations

• Only two involved footprints (as opposed to the many footprints of the 1950’s and 60’s when the first logging roads penetrated the area)

• Only one (a solo bigfoot “researcher†report) was specifically sited at Bluff Creek

• Two (including the report from the “researcherâ€) involved “glowing eyes†from a creature that could not be indentified

Again, the amazing series of identifiable footprints from the 3 to 4 specific individuals dried up after the Patterson event, and this is notable specifically because after the filming, it became literally enshrined as “Bigfoot Central†(as illustrated by the “researcher†who specifically went there in 1993), and should have actually produced more (not less) evidence over the years if the creatures did not leave/die out.

Hell, I thought you'd gripe about me tossing AK out in the first stage of my analysis.

Not at all. I’ve noted for years that most of Alaska would not be good sasquatch habitat at all. I believe their prime habitat is below the 60 degree latitude.

However, I also believe that Southeast Alaska is excellent habitat, and much of Southeast has been spared the intensity of the logging that occurred in California, Oregon, and Washington. More, the human population of Southeast Alaska (an area the size of the state of South Carolina) is roughly equivalent of the city of Greenville, South Carolina, and mainly in three towns (Ketchikan, Sitka, and Juneau; combined population of 65,000). The rest of SE Alaska is roadless, temperate rainforest wilderness.

The Prince of Wales-Hyder census unit has a land area of 7,411 mi2, and a human population of 6,126. The reports per area is < 0.001 (worse than Los Angeles County), but the reports per human population is 0.000490 (roughly equal to Lewis County, pretty squatchy). I suppose AK may be under-reported, because I'm guessing many living in remote areas (those most likely to have an encounter?) don't have internet access, and I'm guessing that most BFRO reports these days are submitted via internet.

There is another factor that Rob Alley details in Raincoast Sasquatch: “Bushrats†(folks living in the Bush in Alaska) don’t much like us “city folkâ€, don’t really want us around, don’t much care if we believe in sasquatch or not, and have no reason to report what they see or know.

[Huntster]

Environmental groups are telling me that I am warming the Earth's climate, too

Well, from this Alaskan, I’d like to thank you from the bottom of my parka. Anybody warming up the Earth warms my soul.

The only organization I hold in less esteem than the typical environmental group is EPA.

Which is their enforcement arm. Bought and paid for.

Low numbers (rather than low densities) could also explain why a species has not yet been documented, much like a species that hasn't been created yet.

If there are low numbers with moderate densities, that would mean that they’re all holed up somewhere. I kind of doubt that, although I strongly suspect that there are higher densities in extremely remote areas. But I think it’s quite clear that there aren’t many sasquatches. Just how many is open to debate (among amateurs, of course, because the proper authorities don’t care enough to participate in the discussion).

While its true that animals adapted to the primeval PNW forests did not evolve with clear cutting, they did evolve with cyclical fires that perform a similar function -- before Smoky Bear came along.

Major wildfires in the PNW have always been rather sporadic due to the rainfall. They typically happen in drought years. The Japanese even tried to set the PNW on fire to no avail.

I don’t think I’ve ever heard of a wildfire in SE Alaska.

That’s why it’s “old growthâ€.............

I agree that a North American ape would likely prefer forest, but having a forest with a man-made meadow nearby can't hurt too bad, especially if traffic along the road leading to the new meadow is regulated. If the Piggly Wiggly in Wasilla were to suddenly find a Chilkoot Charlies next door, you might appreciate being able to stop in a Charlies before or after your grocery shopping from time to time, or you might not exploit the opportunity, but would you be harmed (assuming you have no religious revulsion to alcohol or dancing)

The “biosphere†of Wasilla has “evolved†dramatically over the past few decades. Not too long ago we had plenty of Chilkoot Charlies and no Piggly Wigglies. IOW, booze was widely available, milk was not. This was when the area supported few humans (economically) except the wild, young males. Then somebody built a McDonalds and a Walmart. Suddenly, all kinds of humans moved in.

Boy, did that change things............

Now, sasquatches might be like most other great apes; they do not react well to environmental change, and they do not react well to human exposure. If true, over the past century and a half sasquatches have been pushed about not only from huge areas of Puget Sound (where huge metropolises like Seattle, Tacoma, and Olympia now sit), but even from individual, small drainages (like Bluff Creek, and countless others that have had logging roads and operations have been built).

[Huntster]

We don't know much specifically about habitat needs of bigfoots, but we do know about the habitat where reports of bigfoot encounters come from.

Logging in the Bluff Creek area could have pushed bigfoots out of the area for a while

And maybe for good. We just don’t know.

If a demolition team showed up and tore your house down would you sit down and die or move to a new abode

I’d shoot them before the demolition began.

But I’m not a sasquatch.

Again, I don't think low densities typically contribute to extinctions. Low population numbers can, regardless of population density. A population with low numbers is at a much greater risk of extinction than is a population with large numbers

And that is my main point. We just don’t know, and (this is my other main point) we won’t know as long as science insists on wearing bigfoot blinders.

The fact that science has never recognized the species amounts to pre-creation, not de facto extinction.

Lots of species went extinct before science knew they existed. If humanity isn’t careful, this species might be yet another.

It has to exist before it can go extinct.

If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there to see/hear it, has it really fallen?

Of course.

If a species exists and science doesn’t yet accept it, does it truly exist?

Perhaps it will be tomorrow when our higher power will utter, "Let there be bigfoots." That's a romantic thought, isn't it?

It certainly appears to be the creationist theory that science appears to like. I’m still wondering who amongst them has the power to so proclaim reality.

[Guest]

BobbyO,

Perhaps Alley could be persuaded to compile reports for the rest of the country. He obviously dug deeper than BFRO's published data.

Enjoy your trip to Prince Edward Island. If you don't see a bigfoot, you have a good chance of seeing a black bear.

Pteronarcyd

[Guest]

4087 as of today in the BFRO Database for the US & Canada..

121 Reports for the 4 Counties you state, which equates to about 3% of the Database..

175 reports for the four WA contiguous counties of Skamania, Lewis, Grays Harbor, and Pierce; about 4% of the database.

Pteronarcyd