Guest Lesmore Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 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. Wolverines are rarely seen, due as you say to small #'s and large territories...but people do see Wolverines on occasion. We do know Wolverines exist....pictures, zoos, some lucky enough to see them in the wild. BF, however does not share that even limited visibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Knuck Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 Have you ever seen a BF in NC ? I'm not surprised you've seen deer, small game, etc. Ahh, a little levity. At least that is what I will take it for. lol The deer, small game, etc. are staples for those ancient ones who are some of my neighbors. And no,I don't mean a nursing home is serving meals pioneer style.-Knuck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted March 17, 2011 SSR Team Share Posted March 17, 2011 (edited) Wolverines are rarely seen, due as you say to small #'s and large territories...but people do see Wolverines on occasion. We do know Wolverines exist....pictures, zoos, some lucky enough to see them in the wild. BF, however does not share that even limited visibility. Surely, if you were at least open minded enough to BF's existence, you would be giving a BF a bit more credit mentally than you would be an Animal a fraction of it's Size, wouldn't you & therefore not saying, because we have Wolverine's in Zoo's & Pictures of them albeit very, very rarely, we should have the same for BF ?? Who's lucky enough to see them in the wild by the way ?? Is there a Database of some kind where we could throw in the option of Mis ID & a number of other things ?? Edited March 17, 2011 by BobbyO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 Ahh, a little levity. At least that is what I will take it for. lol The deer, small game, etc. are staples for those ancient ones who are some of my neighbors. And no,I don't mean a nursing home is serving meals pioneer style.-Knuck Are your neighbors immune to photography, too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 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. 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... 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gershake 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.-KnuckKnuck, are you trying to form a relationship with them or are you attempting to obtain evidence? (Or both?)Respectfully, Shake Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 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... And the breeding population numbers get put in here as well. Each of these areas I have identified could have members that would go between them for various reasons, thus we get blurred edges with any report database. My solid belief is that these animals have established their core range in areas with very little human influence and only on the extreme outskirts do they get observed by accident. If they get repeatedly observed, it may take the animals a couple of years to move out to another suitable area. This would explain why there has been times when a rash of sightings take place then die out. These areas of use most likely have to be large tracts of land that are not broken up with roads, farm lands and such. The link I provided for the watersheds have individual maps for each that show human population areas and roads. They also show major food resources, fish, along their many streams. Each active area can incorporate edge barriers such as rivers, cliffs, major roads, major bodies of water, etc. These are the areas defining the barriers. Broken up parcels of land with natural cover and less human influence may only be used for traversing from larger core areas to other core areas. My principal study area the past 10 years has been in the north Cascades, encompassing 200 square miles of wilderness, with many overgrown valleys leading into rugged lush mountains. That is only a 20 by 20 mile area. In that area I have had scientists look at the amount and type of food present and the determination is that the area could easily support a group of these animals, without being detected. Accurate plotting of observations and evidence finds indicate areas where there seems to be nothing happening. They are like holes, yet they are the same geography, lack of humans, food resources, weather, etc. But are these the best places to try and encounter the animals? Maybe a travel corridor would be better, or a very high ridge line over looking lowlands with in a suitable core. I don't know, but without a theory as to how these creatures could exist mixed with the population of humans on this continent, you are just shooting in the dark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 These areas I have identified, with the potential population numbers of 25 individuals have several core areas with in them. The core areas are located inside different watersheds adjacent to each other and may be used only at times when weather and food resources are conducent to habitation throughout the year. These areas do not have square or linear boundaries but are shaped like the terrain they are found in. This now whittles down the amount of information one must utilize in the study area. Each historical account can be scrutinized much more deservedly. The areas soon become well know to the research effort. Past encroachments of areas can be examined for effects. The study areas I am using do present a problem in that I can not be there 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. This means that I may be losing data coming out of them. Other people, or even researches can have encountered something in one of them and not reported it. This is lost information. Negative data it is not. Negative data is when nothing at all occurs in the area but the environment still has recordable factors present. For example, a fish run occurs in Core A and there has been evidence of utilization in the past but has ceased to exist, not knowing that Core B, C, or D may have produced some event that actually prevents or hinders Core A resource use. Anyways... this is my thought process on the subject and how I go about researching areas of interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 One can also just look at the cast and track database an ascertain how many different individuals it contains... pretty small number there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 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. OP, I so hope that you are correct with you numbers. I feel so sorry for the BF species. They have lost a lot of their habitat, have to put up with pesky humans playing in their stomping and feeding grounds, plus rear babies w/o good diapers... I could not help myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted March 17, 2011 SSR Team Share Posted March 17, 2011 Thumbs up for those few Posts Rick.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Lesmore Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 (edited) Surely, if you were at least open minded enough to BF's existence, you would be giving a BF a bit more credit mentally than you would be an Animal a fraction of it's Size,I'm not sure i follow. wouldn't you & therefore not saying, because we have Wolverine's in Zoo's & Pictures of them albeit very, very rarely, we should have the same for BF ?? Who's lucky enough to see them in the wild by the way ??I've seen one....in the Canadian Shield, by the Manitoba- NW Ontario border. Is there a Database of some kind where we could throw in the option of Mis ID & a number of other things ?? Good question. I don't know. Edited March 17, 2011 by Lesmore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 There's no logic to your argument. Camels, Horses, cats, mastadons, and mammoths all are felt able to handle differing envrinmental extremes, as have humans. The model of Giganto is an ape from where Viet nam would have been, so it doesn't help that you seem to be stretching a long shot conjecture as pliable theory. You need a reason why an ape would migrate such a long distance through differing environment and make the trip in enough numbers to breed. Humans and their ilk did, show the proof, btw that monkies did. Name a species, if you can..... Humans are bipedal apes no? So if we have one example of it happening then it is a plausible but as yet a unproven theory. The problem I have here, is your post comes off the same way the Ancient astronaught theorists do on cable, whole lot of could have, and what if does not atheory make sir. Try harder. I see some holes in your comparison, first of all, we have no proof that aliens exist, or have ever existed. We do know though that large apes exist in the fossil record in Asia and many America mammals crossed the land bridge from Asia during the last ice age. We also know that rising ocean levels wiped out a lot of evidence of the Homo Sapien migration. Some of the earliest findings to support that migration are found in the Channel Islands off of California, and not further up the coast. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0779260.html In 1959, the partial skeletal remains of an ancient woman estimated to be 10,000 years old were unearthed in Arlington Springs on Santa Rosa Island, one of the eight Channel Islands off the southern California coast. They were discovered by Phil C. Orr, curator of anthropology and natural history at the Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History. The remains of the so-called Arlington Springs woman were recently reanalyzed by the latest radiocarbon dating techniques and were found to be approximately 13,000 years old. The new date makes her remains older than any other known human skeleton found so far in North America.The discovery challenges the popular belief that the first colonists to North America arrived at the end of the last ice age about 11,500 years ago by crossing a Bering land bridge that connected Siberia to Alaska and northwestern Canada. The earlier date and the location of the woman's remains on the island adds weight to an alternative theory that some early settlers may have constructed boats and migrated from Asia by sailing down the Pacific coast. The Arlington Springs woman lived during the end of the Pleistocene era when large herds of bison and woolly mammoths roamed the grassy plains and other extinct native American animals such as camels, horses, and saber-toothed cats were still around. The remains of Pleistocene-era animals have been discovered on Santa Rosa Island where the Arlington Springs woman was found. In 1994, the world's most complete skeleton of a pygmy mammoth, a dwarf species, was also excavated here. So while there is no evidence in the fossil record to support a great ape in N. America, it's not beyond the realm of possibility that the fossil record has revealed all of it's secrets either. I think a good example of a myth that had no fossil evidence was the hobbit, and then we had a bombshell dropped on us. They not only existed but existed very recently, and it's not implausible that they could still exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest COGrizzly Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 Who's lucky enough to see them in the wild by the way ?? (I thought I replied to this, but now I do not see it) I've seen a wolverine once. In 2005 on a jeep tour. On the same road that I saw those huge tracks in snow not more than a few months earlier. It was not a badger. A few years later, NavySeal posted up a thread on a wolverine photographed near Rocky Mtn National Park. He was kind enough to send me the original article. So wolves, grizzlies and wolverines are all not suppose to be in CO, according to the CDOW...but all 3 are here. Hope all is well with you BobbyO! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Knuck Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 Are your neighbors immune to photography, too? I'm not sure. As of yet I don't have anything that will shoot infrared pictures. And I'm absolutely not going to use flash to take pictures of them at night. They greatly don't like light in their face. You want pics, you **** em off!-Knuck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts