Ideal Bigfoot Conditions?

[Guest]

Hunster,

We could go back and forth for a long time, but allow me to point out a fundamental inconsistency in your overall argument (paraphrasing):

1. "Bigfoots are going extinct."
2. "We know nothing."

I agree that we know next to nothing. As such, we can't conclude that bigfoots are going extinct. I'll invoke Occam's razor and say that an equilibrium situation is the simplest assumption; thus -- the bigfoot population, regardless of its size, are stable. In fact, the very interesting article you included on the grizzlies in the Anchorage basin supports an argument that bigfoots could also be living close to human population centers in sizeable numbers without being detected.

By the way, I still don't think grizzlies are as human shy as bigfoots likely are. My grandparents told me of visiting Yellowstone when my dad was a lad. A big tourist draw was the nightly feeding of the grizzlies at the dump. With armed park rangers standing by, and tourists in bleachers, the garbage would be dumped and the grizzlies would come it to feed, thereby allowing the tourists to see the big bears relatively close up. I'm unaware of any reports of bigfoots being acclimated to human presence to this degree.

And, going back to source/sink theory, individuals are assumed to be efficient in selecting habitat, and source habitat, if available, is assumed to be preferable to sink habitat. You and I agree that source habitat is almost certainly found somewhere in the PNW (likely WA or CA), so if the reports of bigfoot encounters is far flung locations, such as OK or OH, are to be believed, that seems to demonstrate that the PNW source habitat is at carrying capacity, which resulted in emigration to less desireable sink habitats. One can argue that a population at carrying capacity is a healthy population.

So, if you build a MacDonald's the women will come? I've been hanging out in the wrong spots!

Sincerely,

Pteronarcyd

[Guest gershake]

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..

I'd say that's pretty much...!

I also believe that the majority of bigfoot reports are erroneous. Judaculla (former BFRO investigator) estimated just 2% of their reports being valid.

Out of the reports they receive or really out of the reports they publish?

[southernyahoo]

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

This I think is common when an investigator starts talking to people in certain places. One witness will lead you to another and so on. Lots of experiences turn up this way that wouldn't otherwise be published. I think it would surprise alot of people to know how many are unpublished.

[Guest]

I think it would surprise alot of people to know how many are unpublished.

From what I understand, even BFRO doesn't publish many of their "validated" reports. All one has to do is spend an hour browsing this website to understand why most folks opt not to report their potential encounters. Alinsky was correct in identifying ridicule as a powerful way to silence your opponents. We see it in play daily in the news.

[Guest MAN OF THE WOODS]

I would trust the worlds mass murderers combined with my children before I would EVER trust what the BFRO says!!!!

[Huntster]

Hunster,

We could go back and forth for a long time

And it appears that we will. Why? Because of such as this:

but allow me to point out a fundamental inconsistency in your overall argument (paraphrasing):

• "Bigfoots are going extinct."

• "We know nothing."

I don’t proclaim that “bigfoots are going extinctâ€. I proclaim that I believe that bigfoots are decreasing in an already low population and density, and that I believe they may go extinct.

That is another huge tenet of my participation on this forum: I believe, doubt, or disbelieve things, just like everybody else. However, few people use such disclaimers as “I believe†or “I disbelieveâ€. This is especially so among skeptics and denialists. While they love to use the phrase “I doubt†(thankfully), they have a special aversion to “I believeâ€. This demonstrates their ideology.

I agree that we know next to nothing.

How I wish I read more such admissions from certain skeptics and denialists.

As such, we can't conclude that bigfoots are going extinct.

I can, and I do based upon logical conclusions from the evidence:

They have not been “discovered†by science, no carcasses have been found and handed over to “science†like gorillas or other fairly uncommon animals with limited range and populations, biologists already in the field have not stumbled upon proof, and there have been relatively little actual evidence (when one considers the few actual sightings and footprint finds in a region that is populated with millions of humans).

I'll invoke Occam's razor and say that an equilibrium situation is the simplest assumption; thus -- the bigfoot population, regardless of its size, are stable.

And I’ll invoke Occam’s razor and say that an obviously rare creature that has escaped capture over the past couple of centuries in a society of exponentially increasing human population (and with an exponentially increasing number of those humans actually trying (and failing) to capture them) is declining in numbers is the simplest assumption. Further, if they are already rare, and if they are decreasing in numbers, they may well be endangered with extinction.

In fact, the very interesting article you included on the grizzlies in the Anchorage basin supports an argument that bigfoots could also be living close to human population centers in sizeable numbers without being detected.

That is correct.

And that very article is a report from official wildlife managers who conducted a research project to discover those facts, and that is not occurring with regard to sasquatches (at all), and that illustrates yet another of my major tenets: they need to if we are going to learn anything regarding this species.

By the way, I still don't think grizzlies are as human shy as bigfoots likely are.

They’re not. Indeed, they have a reputation of behaving around humans like a bull in a china shop. Their very decline (and extinction) in various areas of the United States (like California) is because of that very fact (along with the fact that an exponentially increasing human population pushed them from their original range, exactly what I’m suggesting with regard the more shy and reclusive species that we call sasquatch).

My grandparents told me of visiting Yellowstone when my dad was a lad. A big tourist draw was the nightly feeding of the grizzlies at the dump. With armed park rangers standing by, and tourists in bleachers, the garbage would be dumped and the grizzlies would come it to feed, thereby allowing the tourists to see the big bears relatively close up. I'm unaware of any reports of bigfoots being acclimated to human presence to this degree.

Actually, there are reports of “pet†bigfeet. Sasfooty has made such claims here on this very forum. She even indicates leaving them cigarettes and Bic lighters, which they appear to enjoy.

Such reports are unproven, and I would like to go on record as disbelieving them (call me a skeptic, or even a denialist, if you’d like).

And, going back to source/sink theory, individuals are assumed to be efficient in selecting habitat, and source habitat, if available, is assumed to be preferable to sink habitat. You and I agree that source habitat is almost certainly found somewhere in the PNW (likely WA or CA), so if the reports of bigfoot encounters is far flung locations, such as OK or OH, are to be believed, that seems to demonstrate that the PNW source habitat is at carrying capacity, which resulted in emigration to less desireable sink habitats. One can argue that a population at carrying capacity is a healthy population.

I’m not so sure your description of a place like Ohio or Oklahoma is “less desireable†or a “sinkâ€. As I’ve posited, I believe the prime habitat features low human activity, high precipitation, dense forest, and is montane. Instead of being a “sink†from, say, the PNW, there may be small pockets in former range that are the last bastions of those isolated populations. If so, then we can expect remnant populations in places like Ohio, Oklahoma, Florida, etc as the first to go extinct, and the PNW as the last.

So, if you build a MacDonald's the women will come? I've been hanging out in the wrong spots!

Yup. McDonald’s, Walmarts, and china shops attract women. In small towns with bars and no grocery stores, you find a Wild West type of community.

During the Alaska Pipeline construction years, much of Alaska (including Anchorage) was very much like the Wild West of the late 19th Century. There were seven men for each woman, and there were very few cops. There were lots of bar fights, gunfights, people disappearing in the wilderness, etc.

It was great!

[Huntster]

Huntster, on 03 March 2011 - 09:41 PM, said:

I also believe that the majority of bigfoot reports are erroneous. Judaculla (former BFRO investigator) estimated just 2% of their reports being valid.

Out of the reports they receive or really out of the reports they publish?

Good question. I believe he wrote that the obvious silliness (“I saw a sasquatch reach out from a spaceship travelling at Mach 3 and slap the Empire State Building yesterdayâ€) were simply ignored, but my impression was that it was generally believed among BFRO investigators (several years back) that about 2% of all reports were likely valid.

The last time I wrote about Jud’s opinion on this Jim Flowers (also a former BFRO investigator) replied to the post in affirmative. I’m not sure if he’s monitoring this forum enough to catch this and comment again, but it could be informative if he did. He would be in a better position to answer your question with more authority.

I just remember it and thought it was a good general percentage to use for estimation purposes.

[Guest MAN OF THE WOODS]

Why is he a FORMER bfro AGENT!? They couldn't pay him enough to lie & steal anymore?

[Guest]

I don’t proclaim that “bigfoots are going extinctâ€. I proclaim that I believe that bigfoots are decreasing in an already low population and density, and that I believe they may go extinct.

I can't argue with your belief that bigfoots may be going extinct. Given our lack of knowledge, they might be. You've stated your belief that populations are decreasing. I've stated my evidence for populations being stable or even increasing. There's insufficient data to definitively test either hypothesis.

That is another huge tenet of my participation on this forum: I believe, doubt, or disbelieve things, just like everybody else. However, few people use such disclaimers as “I believe†or “I disbelieveâ€. This is especially so among skeptics and denialists. While they love to use the phrase “I doubt†(thankfully), they have a special aversion to “I believeâ€. This demonstrates their ideology.

Most of those herein that fancy themselves skeptics are nothing of the kind -- they are close-minded denialists. As a scientist, I must be skeptical, but scientific skepticism requires objectivity and does not equate to denialism. One sees more religious dogma here from the so-called skeptics than one is likely to see in church on Sunday morning.

And I’ll invoke Occam’s razor and say that an obviously rare creature that has escaped capture over the past couple of centuries in a society of exponentially increasing human population (and with an exponentially increasing number of those humans actually trying (and failing) to capture them) is declining in numbers is the simplest assumption.

My hypothesis based on Occam's razor took was 24 words long; yours is 54 words long. Not only is your hypothesis less simple to communicate, it is also more complex than mine. Thus, Occam's razor has cut you deeply.

And that very article is a report from official wildlife managers who conducted a research project to discover those facts, and that is not occurring with regard to sasquatches (at all), and that illustrates yet another of my major tenets: they need to if we are going to learn anything regarding this species.

I'd welcome a well funded, multi-disciplinary investigation of the bigfoot phenomenon. If there is no biological basis for the phenomenon, I think we'd learn from a viable psychological explanation for it. If the gubmint isn't going to do it, I see nothing wrong with a privately funded effort.

Actually, there are reports of “pet†bigfeet. Sasfooty has made such claims here on this very forum. She even indicates leaving them cigarettes and Bic lighters, which they appear to enjoy.

I've heard stories of bigfoots acclimated to the presence of one or a few humans, but I've never heard of anything equivalent to the old Yellowstone grandstand dump performances.

If Sasfooty is really getting bigfoots hooked on tobacco, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals should be called immediately. Such behavior is unacceptable.

I’m not so sure your description of a place like Ohio or Oklahoma is “less desireable†or a “sinkâ€. As I’ve posited, I believe the prime habitat features low human activity, high precipitation, dense forest, and is montane. Instead of being a “sink†from, say, the PNW, there may be small pockets in former range that are the last bastions of those isolated populations. If so, then we can expect remnant populations in places like Ohio, Oklahoma, Florida, etc as the first to go extinct, and the PNW as the last.

Per source/sink theory, each organism's niche is partitioned into either source habitat or sink habitat. Both habitats are acceptable in that they support the organism, but only in source habitat are conditions ideal enough such that birth rate exceeds death rate. This results in source habitats being net exporters of excess individuals to the suboptimal sink habitats. In the BFRO database I see no evidence of source habitat outside of the PNW.

Under your hypothesis of a declining population that may be on the road to extinction, one would expect a species to disappear first from its sink habitat. Barring disturbances, the source habitat would be the last bastion of the species.

From a wildlife management perspective, priority should be given to protection or perhaps even restoration of source habitat, although sink habitat should not be indiscriminantly sacrified.

Pteronarcyd

[Huntster]

My hypothesis based on Occam's razor took was 24 words long; yours is 54 words long. Not only is your hypothesis less simple to communicate, it is also more complex than mine. Thus, Occam's razor has cut you deeply.

Well done!

I'll avoid belaboring the exchange and simply enjoy that witty reply!

[Guest]

Top level predators never have high population densities. There just isn't that much biomass to support large populations of them.

Humanity ?? hello ?

Is there more of a top level predator on the planet ?

It's only in modern times that we've begun to stockpile what we need to survive (farms- both meat and vegetative).

Homo Sapiens started out just like other animals, and over time there isnt much on this planet we havent learned to kill for one reason or another (food/byproducts/etc).

I think we dont see ourselves as predators, because we have lost the necessity to go out and hunt for our breakfast, lunch and dinner....

I'm fairly confident the millions of cows, pigs, chickens, etc that are slaughtered each year dont see it that way...

Human's have always done well banding together- taking care of each other (within a clan or familial group), but I guess when you say "high population density", that can be used in a comparitive way- as in compared to the other species cohabitating the same given area. If you look at it that way, I guess its when we did start to live in larger groups, that we did start to lose the ability to feed everyone with our ancestral predatory ways...

So ultimately I guess it comes down to how you define a predator... ?

Or maybe because we as humans are so different than other species, that its hard to lump us into any one group.

I'd say we are the most unique, fascinating- yet destructive species on the planet.

Anyway, I dont believe that sasquatch's would benefit from anything larger than a small family unit....

If they are closer in relation to humans, then i think that they evolved in a different way- brawn over brains... and rely more on the instinctual imprinting that we as humans rarely feel, and if we do many times fail to recognize.

If they're closer to apes, well then they are limited in their capacity to reason and think- but I tend to be in the first camp....

It's an interesting thread, and my only thoughts as to habitat lean more towards the remarkable capability of these creatures to exist in many different areas, with different climates, different food sources, and varying degrees of encroachment and interaction with humanity....

Art

[Guest]

Per source/sink theory, each organism's niche is partitioned into either source habitat or sink habitat. Both habitats are acceptable in that they support the organism, but only in source habitat are conditions ideal enough such that birth rate exceeds death rate. This results in source habitats being net exporters of excess individuals to the suboptimal sink habitats. In the BFRO database I see no evidence of source habitat outside of the PNW.

Under your hypothesis of a declining population that may be on the road to extinction, one would expect a species to disappear first from its sink habitat. Barring disturbances, the source habitat would be the last bastion of the species.

From a wildlife management perspective, priority should be given to protection or perhaps even restoration of source habitat, although sink habitat should not be indiscriminantly sacrified.

Pteronarcyd

Kudos for a well thought out, reasoned hypothisis. I'm going to tackle a few glaring gaps. In your "Blanket Dismissal" of habitat outside of the PNW you're writing off not only the Colorado research and habitat mapping in relation to sightings, but the rather largish swath of southeastern us from Kentucky on down. East Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia, NC all have prime habitat as well as year round food supply. You not only do Bigfoot research a dis-service, to a point it seems as tho your cherry-picking the available data.

There is quite a bit more data available than just BFRO reports. I think a look at Mangiani's data-base supports my point. You completely dropped the PA sightings, we're 4th in the nation. It may be you're more accustomed to working within your own regional boundaries...or an oversight. However if all the available data isn't factored in one is still presenting a only a broken portrait of the whole picture.

It's at this time I'm going to also bring up the "Elephant In The Room" which is glaringly obvious. The American Bigfoot persuit of research derailed due to the original premise handed down by Leakey's first finds in Africa. A country and time when new discoveries belonged to the "Finder". In countries where the laws decree all new species belong to the people, there is a more open sharing of knowledge. The American Model is a dash for the cash which results in regionalism, an inaccurate picture of all data collected to date, and frankly quite a bit of mis-information in general. By pounding the PGF film into the consiousness of the American people under the guise of "raising awareness" you also create the misinterpretation that the PNW is the only region Bigfoot is found. This results in an appearence of " Disfunctional Bi-Polarism" within the research community as Stan Courtney's work clearly doesn't focus only on the west coast.

Observing the Bigfoot research field evolve as a whole has been entertaining to say the least. On one hand revered researchers are held up to be the Gold-Standard, then unintentionally thrown to the trash heap as in your above post. I'm going to add your math was impressive, I can't do it, and I really think if you did a more realistic evaluation of all the data you'd be head and shoulders ahead in the BF research field.

JMO

[Guest]

Well done!

I'll avoid belaboring the exchange and simply enjoy that witty reply!

Thank you, sir. You are a gentleman and a scholar.

[Guest]

Art,

I ignored humans in my arguments because we have technology far and above anything any other species possesses. I realize we are top level predators, but our technology, combined with our culture, is what has allowed us to flourish.

Yes, bigfoots seem to be highly adaptable, but so do many other species.

Sincerely,

Pteronarcyd

[Guest]

In your "Blanket Dismissal" of habitat outside of the PNW you're writing off not only the Colorado research and habitat mapping in relation to sightings, but the rather largish swath of southeastern us from Kentucky on down. East Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia, NC all have prime habitat as well as year round food supply. You not only do Bigfoot research a dis-service, to a point it seems as tho your cherry-picking the available data.

I believe I specified my assumptions fairly clearly. They included PNW states and province (testing Hunster's hypothesis). Then, on a county-level, any other states or provinces with 200 or more published BFRO reports and counties within such jurisdictions having 20 or more such reports. Outside the PNW, OH is the only states with 200 or more reports, but no county within OH has at least 20 reports. I scanned other (not all) states, including some you mention above, but found none to have a county with at least 20 reports.

There is quite a bit more data available than just BFRO reports. I think a look at Mangiani's data-base supports my point. You completely dropped the PA sightings, we're 4th in the nation. It may be you're more accustomed to working within your own regional boundaries...or an oversight. However if all the available data isn't factored in one is still presenting a only a broken portrait of the whole picture.

I realize there are other sources of reports, but the published BFRO database is readily available and broken down by county in the US. I acknowledged it has flaws, perhaps fatal flaws, but it allows a start for identifying source (i.e., ideal) habitat.

If Mangiani's database supports a refined analysis, go for it -- I look forward to you posting your findings here.

Per the BFRO database, PA is #11, and has less than 100 reports. My location has nothing to do with what the BFRO database contains. You may make the calculations I did and, unless I made an inadvertent error, you will arrive at the same findings I did, despite your location being different from mine.

I'm unaware of any database that contains "all available data," given that most encounters go unreported. By using any given database one can only hope to be using a databased that is fairly consistent throughout the geographic range addressed. As I mentioned up front, I'm sure the published BFRO database fails in this regard, but its what I had readily available.

It's at this time I'm going to also bring up the "Elephant In The Room" which is glaringly obvious. The American Bigfoot persuit of research derailed due to the original premise handed down by Leakey's first finds in Africa. A country and time when new discoveries belonged to the "Finder". In countries where the laws decree all new species belong to the people, there is a more open sharing of knowledge. The American Model is a dash for the cash which results in regionalism, an inaccurate picture of all data collected to date, and frankly quite a bit of mis-information in general. By pounding the PGF film into the consiousness of the American people under the guise of "raising awareness" you also create the misinterpretation that the PNW is the only region Bigfoot is found. This results in an appearence of " Disfunctional Bi-Polarism" within the research community as Stan Courtney's work clearly doesn't focus only on the west coast.

In the US one who discovers a species does not own that species -- he just owns the discovery. Can you provide three documented examples of the problems you claim arise from the "American Model"?

No one pounded the PGF into anyone -- it's the only film of its kind. If it would have been obtained in OH, it would have been shown just as often and been just as significant. My analysis seems to suggest that the PGF was obtained in Del Norte County, CA, because that county may well be an example of bigfoot source habitat. One might expect to encounter a species more often and more easily in its source habitat.

You seem to believe my analysis casts aspersions somehow upon bigfoot researchers outside the PNW. My analysis is objective; I imparted no bias into it. All my assumptions are clearly documented and you and others are free to disagree with them if you wish, but if you do you should provide an alternative. My analysis confirms, in part, Hunster's hypothesis as to what bigfoot source habitat is, and if its in the PNW that doesn't demean researchers investigating elsewhere. It does suggest that the best place to conduct an investigation may be northern CA or south-central WA, but if one lives in OH, for example, I understand the benefits of investigating close to home. And, I believe the majority of the niche for many species is comprised of sink habitat.

Observing the Bigfoot research field evolve as a whole has been entertaining to say the least. On one hand revered researchers are held up to be the Gold-Standard, then unintentionally thrown to the trash heap as in your above post. I'm going to add your math was impressive, I can't do it, and I really think if you did a more realistic evaluation of all the data you'd be head and shoulders ahead in the BF research field.

JMO

I must strenuously object to being accused of throwing any researchers, revered or not, on any trash heap. All I did was report on the results of an analysis, the methodology of which was laid out before the fact. You have a fanciful imagination to read so much into an innocent objective analysis, and if you don't like my results, go ahead and refine what I did and generate your own.

I realize we live in a society that is near hopelessly innumerate, but my math was nothing more than dividing the number of published reports by the area of the jurisdiction in question to result in a metric of reports/mi². I then divided the number of published reports by the human population of the jurisdiction in questions to result in a metric of reports/person (assuming, erroneously, as has been pointed out, that the human population is static). The number of published reports was obtained from http://www.bfro.net/GDB/ (feel free to use the database of your choice). The areas and human populations were obtained from http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/.

Sincerely,

Pteronarcyd