gigantor Posted March 8, 2011 Admin Share Posted March 8, 2011 (edited) With all the hype about the Erickson project, I decided to listen to a blogtalk radio show in which Mr. Erickson is interviewed about his project. The interview occurred in October 31, 2010. During the interview (minute 87) he says: "One thing I'd like to say is that Sasquatch is more widespread than the common black bear... we have reports, enough to know that they occur in most forested areas in North America." I know some of you agree with this view, but I'm highly skeptical of this claim. According to wikipedia, there are 300,000 black bears in Canada + 200,000 in the US, that's half a million black bears. I think the number of BF is zero, but if it does exist, no way they come even remotely close to that many, and there would have to be a lot of them in order to cover that much territory. Edited March 8, 2011 by gigantor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 I don't think he is saying they are equal in numbers. I think he is saying that they are present in more forested areas than black bears. The BF range is greater. If he is talking numbers then I would agree with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted March 8, 2011 SSR Team Share Posted March 8, 2011 (edited) T'is not Mr Erickson's personal opinion that matters though initially in all this G, it's the DNA stuff he/they're working on & to a much lesser extent, the Footage they have.. He's only saying they're more widespread anyway, he isn't saying they have a bigger population etc. Edit : For Sausage Finger Grammar Edited March 8, 2011 by BobbyO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 "One thing I'd like to say is that Sasquatch is more widespread than the common black bear... we have reports, enough to know that they occur in most forested areas in North America." We cannot know for sure, but I do not believe that is the case today. It may have been so a century or two ago. According to wikipedia, there are 300,000 black bears in Canada + 200,000 in the US, that's half a million black bears. I believe that number is way low, as well. ADFG estimates 100,000 black bears in Alaska alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bigfoot Proof Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 If what Erickson meant was there are just as many and the purported black bear population in the US, which is close to 1 million, correct? Then I agree with him 110%, I believe there are so many its insane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 Yes, Erickson is correct, if Sasquatch exists, it would be one of, if not THE the most diversely distributed mammals on the face of the earth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted March 8, 2011 SSR Team Share Posted March 8, 2011 If what Erickson meant was there are just as many and the purported black bear population in the US, which is close to 1 million, correct? Then I agree with him 110%, I believe there are so many its insane. I doubt if he would of meant that becuase if he had, he would have said it.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted March 8, 2011 SSR Team Share Posted March 8, 2011 Yes, Erickson is correct, if Sasquatch exists, it would be one of, if not THE the most diversely distributed mammals on the face of the earth. Nothing like a bit of good ol skeptical sarcasm to lighten the mood... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 If what Erickson meant was there are just as many and the purported black bear population in the US, which is close to 1 million, correct? I believe there are nearly a million black bears in North America, and any attempt to allege that there are that many sasquatches is beyond radical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gigantor Posted March 8, 2011 Admin Author Share Posted March 8, 2011 I don't think he is saying they are equal in numbers. I think he is saying that they are present in more forested areas than black bears. The BF range is greater. True, but if BF has a greater range, it must also have the numbers to populate that territory. Otherwise, would it not have trouble reproducing and maintaining a viable population? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted March 8, 2011 SSR Team Share Posted March 8, 2011 True, but if BF has a greater range, it must also have the numbers to populate that territory. Otherwise, would it not have trouble reproducing and maintaining a viable population? IF it had the range, it MIGHT have trouble reproducing but IF it could travel 40 miles let's say in a 24 hour period, i don't think it would have. It's tough to give answers to offshoots of the initial question, when the initial question isn't necessarily correct anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 True, but if BF has a greater range, it must also have the numbers to populate that territory. Otherwise, would it not have trouble reproducing and maintaining a viable population? They might be a whole lot better at finding one another with the long distance vocals. This coupled with a better memorization of their territory and better utilization of resouces could allow them to spread out more, while reconnecting from time to time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wudewasa Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 Most apex predators have a large home range for the simple fact that it takes a greater amount of nutrients to sustain both individuals and populations of a species. Once in a while you find a honey hole such as a salmon run, but most often a good meal is few and far between. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kane2002 Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 If there are so many why couldn't any one show us a track when I threw down the gauntlet? Fish and game people tell me there are only 25,000 black bear in WA. When I ask about Sasquatch they just roll their eyes and laugh. In fact and for a fact I have talked to 3 different F and G personel in the last six months and they all just laugh when I mention Sasquatch. And those are the guys who are out there much more often and more hours than most of us. I believe there are less than 3000 BF in all of North America. Just barely enough to maintain a breeding pool. Maybe not even that. And no I have never seen one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sallaranda Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 Erickson also stated something about how Sasquatch is more capable of living in more diverse environments, so I think he's merely saying that Sasquatch inhabits a larger physical area than does the black bear. Black bear sticks to very remote, and very particular areas, whereas Erickson postulates that Sasquatch is capable of, and does in fact live in a more widespread variety of terrain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts