Guest Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 A lot of wilderness but not a whole lot of sightings. Having lived in southern Wisconsin my whole life I always found it odd regarding the amount of sightings in Illinois. Horicon is one of many marshes in southern Wisconsin and I've spent many hours sitting in trees along side of these marshes waiting for very nocturnal deer. Never encountered a Biggie in southern Wisconsin however on one occasion I found in very strange that someone or something would be pounding on a tree in the dark well before sunrise. There are plenty of sightings. Just because they aren't published doesn't mean that nothing is going on in Wisconsin or Minnesota. United States estimated Populations of Resident Bigfoot following method proposed: 19 Oct 2013. Alabama – 5 Alaska – 20,000 Arizona - 300 Arkansas - 400 California – 3,000 Colorado - 1100 Connecticut - 35 Delaware - 0 Florida - 300 Georgia - 500 Hawaii - 0 Idaho – 2,000 Illinois - 0 Indiana - 0 Iowa - 0 Kansas - 0 Louisiana - 70 Maine – 2,500 Maryland - 600 Massachusetts - 300 Michigan – 1,800 Minnesota – 2,000 Mississippi - 18 Missouri - 20 Montana – 1,000 Nebraska - 0 Nevada - 23 New Hampshire - 500 New Jersey - 350 Mexico - 600 New York - 650 North Carolina – 1,300 North Dakota - 0 Ohio - 7 Oklahoma - 80 Oregon – 2,750 Pennsylvania – 1,400 Rhode Island - 1 South Carolina - 120 South Dakota - 0 Tennessee - 450 Texas - 25 Utah - 200 Vermont - 410 Virginia - 1600 Washington – 3,000 West Virginia – 1,000 Wisconsin – 3,500 Wyoming - unknown Iowa zero?! How did you come up with zero. Explain the formula you used to determine any of the numbers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 (edited) Hello stratoman, Yeah, I just looked at Maine. I think the record only has 8-10 reports EVER. 2,500 we'd be swatting 'em out of our driveways just to get to work Seriously though Maine's a big place that's mostly uninhabited so the figure just might be on the money? Gonna head out a few times to look for dead ones during the Spring. Edited March 10, 2014 by hiflier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beerhunter Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 Incorrigible1 I have a question for you, Have you ever lived close to the woods by the Missouri River in Nebraska? I have, and it isn't as highly populated as you stated - especially from the South Omaha Bridge to the Bellevue Bridge. and points North and South of Omaha. I know of four reported sightings along the River corridor, and heard a first hand unpublished story that I won't repeat - but I will say this, it was told to me back in the late 1970's by adults. I am not sure if the story is true, but those folks would never go outside their house after dark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted March 10, 2014 SSR Team Share Posted March 10, 2014 Iowa zero?! How did you come up with zero. Explain the formula you used to determine any of the numbers. Seconded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 The funniest thing about the population chart is there is an estimated number of 7 bigfoot in Ohio and 1(!) on Rhode Island and multiple zeros but no guesstimate even for Wyoming. How does a study come up with an estimated number of resident animals as 1? Dude, sorry to give you the bad news but Schlepy out on RI just passed and erm, you drew the short straw. You have to swim out there by the weekend so the population doesn't skew... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted March 10, 2014 SSR Team Share Posted March 10, 2014 I don't think it's a study. It's a population estimate like he said. I'm just wondering how these figures were met rather than anything else as I enjoy the subject of guesstimating populations and people surmising why they get to what figures they do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 I don't mean to argue but a population estimate is either the result of a study of some sort or it's a WAG. A resident population of one is laughable as it has to be transitory, either because the one moves or dies. No family, no resident population. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 I have a two fold opinion. First, in this case, I'm not certain the doc, who I admire very much, understands that the Midwest is covered in forest & bush, particularly along river & creek banks. Also much of it is agriculture land where row crops provide seasonal cover & chow, particularly corn. On the same track, much midwestern land is privately owned which greatly limits human access as with few exceptions like ND (where we don't have boogers as it is by & large open prairie), specific verbal or written permission is required to trespass even if the land isn't posted as such. This all makes for a lot of cover & food sources for all types of wildlife. Second, many types of wildlife are extremely adaptable and I would expect an animal with the smarts of a monkee to be extremely so. Case in point are coyotes, which were extremely rare east of the Mississippi river when I was a kid in the 70s and are now as a species are well established coast to coast. Personally I have no question in my mind that boogers live in the Midwest, and if they find a patch of cover they like, probably are doing fine very near big cities... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 Hello All, The estimates posted by Branco were based on this post #41: As a rough estimate of the possibility of bigfoot, you could take the American Black Bear population and divide it by 100. We start with black bear because these are large, solitary, omnivores. In other words, there are no characteristics of black bear that appear to make them more likely to be seen. Therefore there cannot be as many bigfoot as black bear because the sightings are much more infrequent. There are no black bear in Illinois or Indiana, and only a peripheral population in Ohio in the southeast corner of the state. There are no black bear in the Great Plains states. An estimate like this does tend to contradict the claim that there are bigfoot in every state but such a claim is not really based on common sense. The state of Indiana does not have mountains or deep forest where a large animal could hide. The largest forest is the Hoosier National Forest and this is heavily visited. Southern Illinois is very similar to Indiana and you have significant urban areas stretching from Chicago to Gary Indiana. You also have bounding rivers like the Mississippi and Ohio as well as Lake Michigan and Erie. Essentially you end up with habitat that is contained within the Appalachians and Rocky mountains. Not surprisingly, these are where the largest black bear populations are located. I can state with great confidence that are no bigfoot in the state of Indiana or Illinois or the Great Plains states or the arctic tundra. You also then have to consider what bigfoot would eat in the Winter when black bear hibernate. Do bigfoot hibernate? This would create a northern bound as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salubrious Posted March 10, 2014 Moderator Share Posted March 10, 2014 I can state with great confidence that are no bigfoot in the state of Indiana or Illinois or the Great Plains states or the arctic tundra. You also then have to consider what bigfoot would eat in the Winter when black bear hibernate. Do bigfoot hibernate? This would create a northern bound as well. We can pretty well discount this statement... 'confidence'?? A species unknown to science: how can anyone have confidence of its whereabouts?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIB Posted March 10, 2014 Moderator Share Posted March 10, 2014 And despite "confidence" of someone's calculation, we have witnesses reporting sightings. I have more confidence in the witnesses reports than I do in someone's calculation of what should or should not be possible based on faulty assumptions. MIB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LarryP Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 We can pretty well discount this statement... 'confidence'?? A species unknown to science: how can anyone have confidence of its whereabouts?? GuyinIndiana says otherwise about Indiana, and he certainly has amassed a heck of a lot of audio evidence to back up his claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 Given all the variables, I would suspect if there's enough wilderness to support a deer and bear population, then there's probably enough for BF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 The midwest is big and beyond the population centers sparsely populated. BF could exist in many of it's areas. But could it exist without a trace? That is the question. It's not like the Rockies or PNW where by virtue of the ruggedness of the terrain a species in limited numbers could exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIB Posted March 10, 2014 Moderator Share Posted March 10, 2014 But could it exist without a trace? I would not claim, nor accept a claim, that it IS existing there without a trace. I have several people telling me about the traces they find on a reasonably regular basis. Why does a track cast in Missouri or Nebraska not count the same as one for California or Washingon ... or Oklahoma or Florida? Same for a road sighting, gifting, or any other claim? Why is it believable in one spot but another beyond simple personal bias and questionable preconceived ideas? MIB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts