Guest Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 I didn't think I made any assumptions in any of the above posts. I was connecting dots for a theory. Answering your 3 points: 1. No, I don't, but someone else might. There are already many scientists in the field, in the right geographical locations to discover things like this. 2. Another reason that gold panning is one of my techniques in researching a site. Placer teeth finds might be the easiest and most cost effective method in finding evidence on this continent. 3. The proof of it not being a hoax falls on others, not the finder. Suppose a scientist in one of those Alaska caves comes across some Giganto fossils. Do you think that information would be released straight away? What kind of an impact would that have on the general scientific community? What about the Government and applicable industries (mining, forestry, development, etc.) Any such find, in my opinion, might take years to reach the public so that the impact can be moderated with rules and measures in place beforehand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest fenris Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 I didn't think I made any assumptions in any of the above posts. I was connecting dots for a theory. Answering your 3 points: 1. No, I don't, but someone else might. There are already many scientists in the field, in the right geographical locations to discover things like this. Fine walk away from a good back and forth 2. Another reason that gold panning is one of my techniques in researching a site. Placer teeth finds might be the easiest and most cost effective method in finding evidence on this continent. Hopefully you fare better than the panners on the cable show, you got some quality rubes there, at least the episodes I saw 3. The proof of it not being a hoax falls on others, not the finder. And yet the finder may in fact be a hoaxer Suppose a scientist in one of those Alaska caves comes across some Giganto fossils. You'd need to prove the identity, a mysery molar isn't enough Do you think that information would be released straight away? What kind of an impact would that have on the general scientific community? What about the Government and applicable industries (mining, forestry, development, etc.) Conspiracy theory speculation isn't an argument without proof, they would just hire their own "expert" to make it go away Any such find, in my opinion, might take years to reach the public so that the impact can be moderated with rules and measures in place beforehand. You didn't answer my question, you still need it to happen, Viet Nam is a long way from Tiporary, Alaska to.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Lesmore Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 There are a hellufalot more Sasses in my neck of the woods than black bears. I tend to agree with Erickson. JMEO-Knuck Where's your neck of the woods ? Don't see how this can be, no matter where your neck of the woods might be. Given that the Black Bear has been seen by innumerable people.....sometimes in the wilds, sometimes in zoos. Photographs...still and moving, abound of Black Bear...same cannot be said of BF. Black bears exist...they're known, they're seen, as opposed to BF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest fenris Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 Where's your neck of the woods ? Don't see how this can be, no matter where your neck of the woods might be. Given that the Black Bear has been seen by innumerable people.....sometimes in the wilds, sometimes in zoos. Photographs...still and moving, abound of Black Bear...same cannot be said of BF. Black bears exist...they're known, they're seen, as opposed to BF. I've seen one, I believe I've seen the other, bears aren't as shy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 Gentlemen, this thread seems to be morphing into a personal arguement between the two of you. Please get back on topic or take it to PM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest fenris Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 Gentlemen, this thread seems to be morphing into a personal arguement between the two of you. Please get back on topic or take it to PM. A friendly one imo, but will do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kane2002 Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 Gentlemen, we can all have our theories. Until proven they are just that. Since a most common theory is that a land bridge existed, and a wildly acclaimed theory that our ancestors crossed over it, with their dogs as companions and as a food source; it is not hard for me to believe Sasquatch, in whatever form, could have done the same. I will go along with DDA on his thoughts. Now, as to the subject of how many Sasquatch there are in relation to black bear I am still the proponent of 25,000 black bear in Washington State and MAYBE 2-3,000 Sasquatch,(could be fewer than 500.) The 25,000 came from a conversation with the Fish and Game. (Whom I happen to trust) The 2-3,000 figure, of course, cannot be proven either, but was gleaned from conversations with researchers more knowledgeable than I. The 500? as long as we are all guessing. Have you, anyone, seen any tracks, anywhere, lately? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Knuck Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 Where's your neck of the woods ? Don't see how this can be, no matter where your neck of the woods might be. Given that the Black Bear has been seen by innumerable people.....sometimes in the wilds, sometimes in zoos. Photographs...still and moving, abound of Black Bear...same cannot be said of BF. Black bears exist...they're known, they're seen, as opposed to BF. Hi Les, I'm in the South Piedmont area of NC, and I was amazed beyond to find out who some of my neighbors are. A clue; If you want to **** one off shine a flashlight on him/her when they are out in the open. I would have never imagined they would be here. But I found out different. (remember flashlight) Seems my area is a rather comfortable spot. Plenty of woods, deer, small game, water, fish, turtles, frogs, and agriculture (veggies) for them. If any of my neighbors know, all they do is call the sheriff, (I've seen a deputy looking in the woods with his ally light.)Otherwise they aren't alerting anyone else. Sorry but that's it for the open forum.-Knuck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 In Washington State there are: 3000 Mt Goat 25,000- 30,000 Black Bear 40,000 Deer 60,000 Elk 2 Wolves 20 Grizzly 25 Wolverine 60,000 hunters So I like to equate the sasquatch with an endangered species more so than with these other big mammals... the Wolverine The population estimate for Wolverine is between 250 and 300 for all of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, Colorado, Utah, and California. That is a very large area of distribution area and a pretty small population size (this is called population density.) These animals do not have large ranges either. They are rarely seen and small in size. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 Now with the Sasquatch, I think we have to move the numbers around a bit to fit the observations. First, Sasquatch are large in size, probably able to travel at least as far as a Grizzly in range, and seem to be seen more often than wolverines. In the US, there are only 50 known den sites being monitored on private lands. Scandinavia has about 500 dens located. So the way I figure it is that for Washington there is probably no more than 150 and no fewer than 25 animals at any one time, since they probably don't recognize state and country boundaries. Why do I think this? Because there are about 6 distinct areas of activity in Washington when it comes to Sasquatch. Each of those areas could not have more than 25 animals in them or the 10,000 hunters (divided by 6 of course) would run in to them a lot more than they do. Those six areas of activity are the Oly Penn, S. Cascades, Central Cascades, N. Cascades, Blues, Okanogan. I don't really use this terminology though. I go by watersheds. These are what I use in my research, not state county's like some sighting listings do. Check it out... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kane2002 Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 Thanks DDA, I was researching the numbers of animals in our state and you beat me to it. Also the Lynx has low numbers. And a big range. His numbers go up and down with the abundance of snowshoe hare. I like your number of Sasquatch of less than 150 a lot better than my estimate. There just is not the evidence to back up a greater population. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgerm Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 I've lived in Oregon for the last 63 years and spend a fair amount of time out in the wilds and very seldom do I see a Black Bear. Now a BF is much smarter and hides very well so seeing a BF is very rare. The numbers could be equal but that many BFs running around would be scary. Bears do a great job of hiding since they are hard to find and I have only seen less than a dozen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gigantor Posted March 17, 2011 Admin Author Share Posted March 17, 2011 Meldrum says about 2000 in the PNW, 4000 total. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Lesmore Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 I've lived in Oregon for the last 63 years and spend a fair amount of time out in the wilds and very seldom do I see a Black Bear. Now a BF is much smarter and hides very well so seeing a BF is very rare. The numbers could be equal but that many BFs running around would be scary. Bears do a great job of hiding since they are hard to find and I have only seen less than a dozen. Come up to NW Ontario or Eastern Manitoba...the places are lousy with Black bears. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Lesmore Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 Hi Les, I'm in the South Piedmont area of NC, and I was amazed beyond to find out who some of my neighbors are. A clue; If you want to **** one off shine a flashlight on him/her when they are out in the open. I would have never imagined they would be here. But I found out different. (remember flashlight) Seems my area is a rather comfortable spot. Plenty of woods, deer, small game, water, fish, turtles, frogs, and agriculture (veggies) for them. If any of my neighbors know, all they do is call the sheriff, (I've seen a deputy looking in the woods with his ally light.)Otherwise they aren't alerting anyone else. Sorry but that's it for the open forum.-Knuck Have you ever seen a BF in NC ? I'm not surprised you've seen deer, small game, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts