Erickson: Sasquatch More Widespread Than Common Black Bear

[Guest fenris]

To answer my own question):

It is repeatedly claimed that proof or <adjective> evidence (as if that hasn't already been provided) is required (not "needed") in order to justify even an initial investigation by our appropriate and duly authorized wildlife management agencies.

Now, I can honestly say that I don't understand that requirement, and don't agree with it, but there it stands, and that has been supported in word on this very forum by a number of people.

And I still wonder if Pramatist understands that or not.

All I have to respond to that is, investigation by Wildlife Managemnet isn't the goal of everyone involved in the mystery, I don't honestly know that much about that, and can't help but suspect they either already know (much like the Cougar thing) or they just don't care. The politics of logging etc well change that later, but I don't know of that happening at this point.

[Guest Kane2002]

It seems to me, that the bulk of this forum is in the discussion of; if there is, or is not, a Sasquatch. So if a person had credible evidence that he/she, had a relationship of any kind with Sasquatch, he/she would want to contribute it, with some truth. Some apparently do not want to. So, maybe they don't want to because they are afraid of something, or afraid of us? Or may not because they want to keep it all to themselves? My question is, if they do not want to contribute their evidence, why tantalize us with it? Now, they may say, "it is my evidence and I will do what I want with it, so there." "Yes it is and you may." Perhaps a thread could be started under the title of, "I have proof, but you can't see it, so there." It seems that some where in my childhood I have heard something like that before.

Meanwhile back in the forest there are Sasquatch. They are just waiting to share their lives and livelyhoods with us. We finally have a day of sunshine here in Western WA. so I am looking for mushrooms and Sasquatch tracks this weekend. What are you doing?

Edited March 23, 2011 by Kane2002

[Guest]

It seems to me, that the bulk of this forum is in the discussion of; if there is, or is not, a Sasquatch. So if a person had credible evidence that he/she, had a relationship of any kind with Sasquatch, he/she would want to contribute it, with some truth. Some apparently do not want to. So, maybe they don't want to because they are afraid of something, or afraid of us? Or may not because they want to keep it all to themselves? My question is, if they do not want to contribute their evidence, why tantalize us with it? Now, they may say, "it is my evidence and I will do what I want with it, so there." "Yes it is and you may." Perhaps a thread could be started under the title of, "I have proof, but you can't see it, so there." It seems that some where in my childhood I have heard something like that before.

Meanwhile back in the forest there are Sasquatch. They are just waiting to share their lives and livelyhoods with us. We finally have a day of sunshine here in Western WA. so I am looking for mushrooms and Sasquatch tracks this weekend. What are you doing?

I can certainly sympathize with your sentiments Kane, but I also believe it's a bit more complicated. Bigfoot easily physically dwarfs us. Just because someone is willing to share some of what they've seen or experienced near or at their homes should NOT be misconstrued to to mean this close proximity is all "Hearts & Flowers". I would imagine at times it's a quite uneasy truce. In sharing on the forum here I've noticed for the most part information is kept to "Just the Facts". Not many are sharing their feelings regarding how living close to BF affects them or their families.

In truth a lot of the folks you suspect of with-holding evidence have in the past turned it over to whoever they thought was the most appropriate party, for testing, examination ect. Sadly as often as not it was either mishandled, lost, or the lab it was sent to couldn't identify it. In other situations when Researchers have arrived to camp out on the property Bigfoot retreated until all the unusual activity ceased. It is also not unheard of that unethical practices have occured involving all of this leaving the property owners quite bitter. Just saying there is a depth to this more than just the typical "I have something & You don't" scenario.

[Huntster]

All I have to respond to that is, investigation by Wildlife Managemnet isn't the goal of everyone involved in the mystery

Too bad. They're the pros. Their job is not only to know and understand the species, but how they interact with other species, their place in the overall habitat, and much, much more.

While I can believe that there are people who distrust science and would withhold information from them, I find it difficult to believe that there are many of them. I strongly believe that most of the people who have interacted with this species would gladly help professional wildlife managers learn about them.

I don't honestly know that much about that, and can't help but suspect they either already know (much like the Cougar thing) or they just don't care.

My suspicion (and experience) is that they already have their hands full with wildlife politics screwing up sound biological management, and really don't need the ultimate political/ideological wildlife species making their jobs that much more difficult. And that is just among those who are open minded enough to accept the possibility of the existence of sasquatch. That probably amounts to less than 10% of all government biologists, anyway.

The politics of logging etc well change that later, but I don't know of that happening at this point.

Logging politics would just be a drop in the bucket. There is a very real possibility that these creatures could be described as a hominid, which would bring up questions of "human rights", "land rights", "subsistence rights", etc, etc, etc.

[Guest]

Are your neighbors immune to photography, too?

ROF, LOL, Well Said!

[Guest]

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.

You are absolutely correct. The BF species is reported world wide, from mountain tops to the deepest valleys.

They are essentially everywhere, there are some diversity with coloring and build, but all are a part of the same species.(IMHO)

[Guest]

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.

I saw a program about BF, and part of the program dealt with a forest ranger who had been tracking a BF and actually did catch film of the creature very clearly eating in a lightly wooded area.

So forest rangers may know about them, but prefer not to disclose their beliefs due to the continued ridicule of people who report BF, and their belief in the BF species..It could mean their job to report a sighting.

[Guest]

Let um laugh, who better for the SAS' to stay away from than them, good thing they have smarts. I wouldn't believe a Federal worker if you paid me, they are always telling people, 'no... no cats here' or no, 'no bears in this state'. I can't argue anyones guesstimate after all we do have different opinions but take into consideration the thousands upon thousands of reported sightings, incidences and what people heard... and at least triple that to account for the unreported sightings. How many of us have seen a bear in the wild? And they're dumb compared to a SAS. One could be 20' in front and not seen or heard. So make fun if you like, have a good laugh... I stand by their population being equal to black bears.

I agree 100%. Well said! Thank you..

[Guest]

If you listen to the interview, he was implying that they are all over the place and live in family groups. He did say that they occur in most forested areas in North America.

To do that, there must be lost of them.

I would love to be able to think that BF lives in family groups.

What I've heard in the past has them as solitary animals:(.

[Guest UnknownHairyOne]

I agree with him and seem to remember a thread not long ago when everyone laughed at thought of there being more than 3000. Now Erickson throws this number out and everyone is suddenly believers.

My approach towards the equation

If there is 20,000 unique sightings in the most recent 20 years (assumption of long life span-like humans-may want to reduce some for mortality). You might divide that number by 2% factor (or your best guess as to what % of total you might randomly catch a sighting of). I use 2% because they are so elusive. That may even me too high. Using that number, you might arrive at 1,000,0000. You'd have to have a pretty good number and you might want to factor in different percentages for sightings on one's own property versus sightings that were random (streets or whatever). That's the way I would calculate the population anyway.

[BobbyO]

You are absolutely correct. The BF species is reported world wide, from mountain tops to the deepest valleys.

They are essentially everywhere, there are some diversity with coloring and build, but all are a part of the same species.(IMHO)

No it's not, BF is a name used to describe an unknown North American " Animal " & is not used to describe any other Animal at all Worldwide.

No they're not, BF's are not essentially everywhere, they are in the US & Canada, & possibly Russia.

Do you think BF is the same Species as the unidentified Primate that gets reported on the Forests of Sumatra that is known as the Ornag Pendek, a Creature that has been described as Hobbit like, has never been reported to be anywhere near BF Size & doesn't particulary have big feet ??

[Guest Gambit]

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 don't know what is so hard to understand about the words "wide spread", they don't sound like, rhyme with, or resemble in any way the

words "more numerous".

[Guest]

These two are likely the best pair I've ever read on either the old or new BFF. They deserve regular quoting.

DDA is probably the best sasquatch hunter out there. He certainly uses outstanding logic.

I have the same feeling, Huntster. I have been reading Mr. Noll's posts here for a long time...And I think he is a long thinker. I can't think of any other researcher who seems to play the problems through in his or her mind as well as this.

I expect he may be the guy who shows up one day with enough evidence to seal the deal...But I also think that isn't why he is looking.

[Guest]

I want to chime in on this habituation story, and others like it:

I don't know how long some of you have been coming to the BFF. For me, over four years (could be longer). In that time, we have had DOZENS of posters tell us wild tales of repeated visits, habituation, near language, etc. etc. Without a SINGLE exception, NOT ONE of those posters has been willing to provide any proof at all of their claims. NOT. ONE. It is the easiest KIND of hoaxing, requiring nothing more than an internet connection. It is the fart joke of the sasquatch world. So if you are happy being in that company, I guess that is good for you...Because that is exactly where these stories put you in my estimation.

In this very THREAD, DDA post a very well thought out set of parameters for density, location, and numbers of sasquatches. I want ALL OF US to strive for that level of thought on this, including respect for others credulity. These claims are not even vaguely supportable. Are you saying that taking a footprint cast, or making a hairtrap would 'tip' the sasquatches that you are telling people about them? Are they tapping your phones? Reading your mind? Trust? SERIOUSLY??

Personally, I get annoyed when someone makes such a claim, and then gives us some story as to why. Almost inevitably, the reason boils down to pure unvarnished B.S. If you are having repeated visits, and coming HERE to tell us, just stop it or prove it. I am of a mind to get much LESS welcoming to those that make such claims. In over four years of reading posts and these types of conversations, they ALWAYS end the same.

Do this instead: Start a support group. Start your own web board, where no one is held to any standard of honesty.

If you are 'entertained' by these stories...If you 'are just here to enjoy the stories', good for you. But in the same way I don't encourage a bully by cowering, I no longer care to support someone else's pathology by giving any credence at ALL to stories of repeated long term visits, sign language, psychic contact or serving bigfoot a pie and ice cream on your back porch.

Maybe YOU don't think you owe the world proof...But some of us think you do. I, for one, will never again read anything you post on BFF without remembering your unwillingness to share even the slightest MORSEL of proof for what you claim. That is the way societies work, online, or in meatspace.

I bet I am not the only person here that feels that way...I just wish we were more willing to call a spade a spade...We could have saved ourselves months of time in the CreekFreak thread, and too many others like it.

Smitty

[Will]

Smitty, I agree.

IMO it would also help the beast to be discovered and protected.