If My Math Is Correct (Sasquatch/square Mileage)

[Guest]

•Canada's Boreal Forest: 1.3 Billion Acres

•U.S. Forest Acreage: 745 Million Acres

•Total: 2,045,000,000 (2.045 Billion Acres)

•Sasquatch Estimated Population: 10,000

•640 Acres = 1 square mile.

•2,045,000,000 divided by 640 = 3,195,392.5 square miles.

•3,195,392.5 divided by 10,000 = 319 square miles.

•Therefore, for a population of (estimated) 10,000 Sasquatch, there is one (1) Sasquatch for every 319 square miles.

•Canadian Black Bear population: 395,500

•U.S. Black Bear Population: 328,000

•Total: 733,500

•3,195,392.5 divided by 733,500 = 4.35 square miles.

•Therefore, for a population of 733,500 Black Bears, there is one (1) Black Bear for every 4.35 square miles.

•Additionally, 319/4.25 = 73.

••Therefore, for a population of 733,500 Black Bears, there is seventy three (73) Black Bears for every 319 square miles.

So, the estimated population ratio of Black Bears to Sasquatch is 73 to 1 (73:1)

[AaronD]

So, would it be correct to say on a given excursion through the woods, that one is 73 times as likely to see a bear as a sasquatch? 

[Guest]

So, would it be correct to say on a given excursion through the woods, that one is 73 times as likely to see a bear as a sasquatch?

I think so, yes. Depends on diversity and spread.

[AaronD]

Another factor could also be that bears don't seem to have the need to avoid detection that squatches obviously do. I've caught bears going through garbage cans and they know I'm there but just act like they don't care.

[norseman]

I think in order for Sasquatch to be a real creature it must be a rare animal. It cannot be as numerous and wide spread as some people claim. I just watched a documentary in which Prof. Grover Krantz gave his opinion that the Sasquatch population wasn't more than 2000 animals in all of N. America.

[dmaker]

If they are that spread out, how can they even sustain a mating population?

[Guest]

I'm in the forest (hiking or running) for 1-2 hours, 4 days a week, probably 8 months of the year. I do 1 or 2 remote backcountry high alpine trips per year of 1 to 3 days' length. I've been doing that in my current location (southern interior of BC) for about a decade now. In that time, I've seen 2 black bears and 1 cougar on foot. From the car, probably another 10 black bears, 3 grizz, and one wolf. No sasquatch (no opinion expressed on existence - just putting numbers out there to offer perspective to gauge sighting possibilities). 

[BobbyO]

I think in order for Sasquatch to be a real creature it must be a rare animal. It cannot be as numerous and wide spread as some people claim. I just watched a documentary in which Prof. Grover Krantz gave his opinion that the Sasquatch population wasn't more than 2000 animals in all of N. America.

 

It could be Norse, i'm not saying it is, but it could be because of Canada.

 

Go back to Austin's numbers too, just under double the amount of forest there than in the entire US and that's only the Boreal forest remember, not the coastal old growth of which BC has in abundance and approximately 70m acres of.

 

Add to that 80% of the Canadian population live within 100 miles of the US border and only 14% of it's population living within that forest ( approximately 4m people ) and there isn't hardly anyone there.

 

It's why i take all North American Sasquatch population estimates with a pinch of salt, as with numbers like that, nobody can be even remotely close to being accurate because of Canada.

 

Now if we talk about the US, then that's very possible.

 

My personal belief based on years of looking at various things, is that in WA only there wouldn't be any more than 200 animals tops and in fact i wouldn't be at all surprised if there was less than half of that number.

 

So if we are talking about those kind of numbers where WA, the state with the most Sasquatch sightings and arguably the best habitat is concerned, then numbers in the US would be low, very low in my opinion. 

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

"So, would it be correct to say on a given excursion through the woods, that one is 73 times as likely to see a bear as a sasquatch?" 

 

 

This question is a bit more complex than meets the eye. Since Sasquatch is a different animal, we don't really have a way of knowing the likelihood of having an encounter compared to bears without somehow mathematically inputting natural variables such as their tendency to avoid humans, the excursion that is taken ect. into a formula. Even if someone miraculously created a working formula for this, we would still need information from actual Sasquatch, so it's pretty much an impossible question to answer.

 

[BobbyO]

Spot on Ontario.

[Guest ewashguy56]

I don't know how many, certainly people who weren't really into this creature and know almost all there is to know about it, would find it easy to give an estimate of maybe how many Bigfoots there are in N. America. I am thinking it must have been an episode of "Finding Bigfoot" where I heard an estimate of maybe 4000 or more as I recall. Most of the time they seem rather elusive, then you hear about the stories where people see them next to a busy traffic street or something. There doesn't really seem to be too many though, does there, and their habitat is shrinking a bit with populations encroaching out in the boonies and all.

[Guest]

If they are that spread out, how can they even sustain a mating population?

Couldn't the same question be asked about certain rare species of sharks? Some specimens of which have only been documented a couple of times over decades.

[Guest DWA]

Keep in mind that few if any reports are believed by most (if any) people the witness knows; keep in mind as well that for any phenomenon like this, reports are in all likelihood a very small percentage of actual encounters.

 

It's really hard to make estimates for anything like this.  There would have to be enough of them to have sustained a breeding population.  And being from the bulk of reports generally solitary, omnivorous, and primates, sasquatch probably don't need to live in particularly remote places.  Animals like wolves and brown bears have been discovered living in surprisingly close proximity to humans.  From reports, sasquatch would seem at least as well equipped to do so. 

[Guest]

A factor the OP isn't taking into consideration is that not every square mile is equally human-accessible to begin with. Human penetration into many wilderness areas is confined to the peripheries, or along very narrow corridors relating to travel areas (such as a highway going through a forest). Many 100s of millions of acres see virtually no human penetration whatsoever.

[Gotta Know]

comment moved to new thread--didn't want to hijack!

Edited May 24, 2013 by Gotta Know