Are Sasquatch Numbers On The Rise In Your Opinion?

[Guest lightheart]

After reading some of the recent posts by Rex, I have been giving some thought to the wildlife management areas that have been created around the US. Often they are located adjacent to state or national parks creating extensive habitat for many species. The expressed purpose is to preserve forested land areas for animals such as deer,wild hogs, elk, wild turkeys etc. whose numbers were dwindling about one hundred years ago. All of these animals have made robust comebacks due to plentiful food and adequate habitat.

 

I am pondering the idea that the Sasquatch may have also been dwindling in number about one hundred years ago, but due to the protection efforts being made on behalf of the other species the big guys could  now be on the increase.

 

Some have suggested that the special wildlife areas may even be a quiet government program to protect or study the Sasquatch themselves. I don't think I could rule that out. But even if this program was not targeting the Sasquatch perhaps the wilderness protection initiatives have inadvertently benefited them 

 

So is the Sasquatch population on the rise?

[MIB]

There's no way to tell.   There are too many things changing all at once.   The internet allows Joe Public to report sightings, etc and have them reach the rest of Joe Public without having to go through a news reporter's "filter."   Our population is growing rapidly.   Because of improvements in outdoor gear, we are getting into more and more remote places in greater and greater numbers.   Because of cultural shifts, we are talking about what we see more freely.    Taken together, those could produce more reports even with the sasquatch population dropping.   If their behavior is also changing, the flux is even more unpredictable.  

 

We can offer opinions, but I doubt we can KNOW.  

 

MIB

[Guest lightheart]

I agree that there are many variables MIB. There is no way to know for sure. I do however, think that since the animals they eat  are more plentiful and an effort is being made to create wildlife corridors, greenways, and wildlife management areas, their numbers could be increasing.

Edited November 15, 2013 by lightheart

[Guest]

I say Yes and for the same reason as OP.

[Gotta Know]

Interesting question, and it would logically follow that as game populations were allowed to rebound, so too would BF populations. I would think that human population movement away from rural areas into the cities would also benefit them, though no doubt the rural/country areas are not wanting for human presence.

 

Oh, and just a point of clarification that I don't believe any wildlife areas are intended to protect wild hogs--they are merely beneficiaries of efforts to help deer, elk and other native species. Being a non-indigenous species, they actually do great harm to the environment. Only Peccary in the the southwest are native; wild hogs as we know them were introduced.

 

Edit to add: I'm sure BF are glad for their supply of wild bacon, no doubt. They both seem to like the nastiest, thickest swamps and thickets. I bet being a BF in the south must be feel like every day is an all-you-can-eat buffet.

Edited November 16, 2013 by Gotta Know

[Guest lightheart]

Thanks Gotta Know I didn't know  that LOL. That's one of the reasons I like this forum. It is so educational. Now that i think about it they do create a good bit of damage. One area where I mountain bike the trails are super bumpy where they have been rooting and  I saw a really large one the other day when I was riding.  I do think they are a rather consistent source of food for Sasquatch.  

 

Well it looks like we were both thinking the same thing haha bacon for bigfoot

Edited November 16, 2013 by lightheart

[dmaker]

I would say that if alleged squatch numbers were on the rise, then the probability of the remains of one being found due to natural or accidental expiration would have to increase in proportion. And since that event has not happened, then I am going to with no. The same goes for concrete evidence of the existence of said, alleged squatch.

[Trogluddite]

You've got to be freakin' psychic. Take a gander at the chart I just put up in the Northeast sigthings thread....

 

I believe that scientists are beginning to agree that the introduction of early humans to a previously undisturbed environment caused, or significantly contributes to, mega-fauna die-off.  It would be logical that a big ape, even a smart big ape, would not immune to this. It could be that Native Americans had reduced the bigfoot population to a very low number pre-Columbus.

 

Then the Europeans come and the pressure is on the Indians.  They have massive die-offs due to wars and new diseases, thus opening up some breathing space for Bigfoot, particularly in remote areas like the Pacific northwest.  The Europeans don't expand to fill the void quickly or completely, so there are relatively few encounters.  

 

How long does it take for an animal population to bounce back from near extinction levels?  

Edited November 16, 2013 by Trogluddite

[bfriendly]

Interesting question, and it would logically follow that as game populations were allowed to rebound, so too would BF populations. I would think that human population movement away from rural areas into the cities would also benefit them, though no doubt the rural/country areas are not wanting for human presence.

 

Oh, and just a point of clarification that I don't believe any wildlife areas are intended to protect wild hogs--they are merely beneficiaries of efforts to help deer, elk and other native species. Being a non-indigenous species, they actually do great harm to the environment. Only Peccary in the the southwest are native; wild hogs as we know them were introduced.

 

Edit to add: I'm sure BF are glad for their supply of wild bacon, no doubt. They both seem to like the nastiest, thickest swamps and thickets. I bet being a BF in the south must be feel like every day is an all-you-can-eat buffet.

^^^^^^^^^^^THIS and Yes!

 

I like to hunt hogs and there are more and more everyday..........as we speak there are many hogs having babies, especially here in the South..........Yep, I think there are more Little Big Fellas born each year than there are that Die, IMHO

 

B

[Guest JiggyPotamus]

I introduced my hypothesis of a large and ever increasing sasquatch population quite a while back, although it is by no means a novel hypothesis, and I have found that the proponents of such an idea are few and far between. Many researchers tend to believe that these animals are very scarce, and thus their population is relatively low. Like I said, I don't believe this. 
 

It is true that some pieces of evidence could potentially suggest otherwise, but I believe that we do not yet have an accurate perspective to judge such aspects of the sasquatch population. The fact that these animals seem so elusive is enough for some to conclude that the population must be small, but they are not considering some important things. For instance, the sheer amount of uninhabited forest land in North America. The fact that no one is around to even have a sighting translates into some believing that the sighting density suggests a smaller population. I believe that these areas are going to be much more heavily populated.

 

In fact, I also hypothesized that sasquatch sightings will continue to increase, mainly due to the idea that the flowering population is driving them further and further from ideal habitat, which has already been claimed, and closer to more heavily populated areas. Granted, these animals are intelligent enough to live on the outskirts of civilization and still rarely be seen, so this is probably not that big of a problem at the moment. But as we humans continue to expand and eat up sasquatch habitat, I am thinking it is possible that these animals will find themselves decreasing in population, albeit slowly.

 

But like I said, we really don't know enough to say for sure. I have attempted to work out the length of time the population has been increasing, and whether it ever suffered a dramatic decline in numbers. I found it plausible that the introduction of Europeans to North America affected the sasquatch population in a manner similar to the way it affected the Native Americans. That is to say diseases ran rampant and caused a plunge in the population density. How quickly such diseases would have spread among the sasquatch, considering they likely did not have direct contact with humans, and probably very little contact with each other, is difficult to speculate on. It does seem that diseases that spread mainly through contact would be unlikely to have a severe impact on the sasquatch population. But any airborne pathogens could easily have affected the sasquatch in a dramatic fashion.

 

Then there is the somewhat far-fetched idea of a large human vs. sasquatch war. Although this may not be as crazy as it sounds, considering this idea was introduced through Native American history/lore. Supposedly some Native groups stated their ancestors killed off most of the sasquatch, and that only a small number remained. IF this is indeed accurate, which is plausible, then their population could have been monumental before the arrival of Europeans, and sasquatch could have been quite thick in North America a few thousand years ago.

 

So for all we know, their numbers could be increasing to such a level now, and in fifty years they could be seen just about anywhere. Granted, they will likely have been identified by science by that time. 

 

You mentioned sasquatch thriving in protected woodlands, and I am sure this is the case. However, sasquatch can thrive in ANY forest that meets their survival needs. We are talking about THE apex predator here, therefore there are no outside forces except for solitude and availability of food that will affect where a sasquatch can live. The climate doesn't matter, as long as it is not really really hot. They tolerate cold quite well. Other animals do not matter, except for humans, and it is easy to avoid us and our population centers. Hunters are not really a threat to them, as they usually avoid them as well since they normally detect the hunter before the hunter detects them. Not always, but most of the time. The awareness of these animals when it comes to anything foreign in their environment is uncanny in my opinion. This is the main reason trail cameras are unsuccessful in my opinion as well, coupled with the scent of the camera, possibly the sounds, as well as the trace smell of humans having been in the area. Maybe even footprints, disturbed earth, etc. 

 

If they are relatively intelligent and adept when it comes to their environment, this is NOT that hard to believe. Anyway, the other reason that wilderness preserves are better suited to sasquatch than other areas, even though they can live in diverse places, is the availability of food. Game preserves or protected areas could potentially have more food sources for sasquatch.

 

To sum things up, I admit I could be totally wrong about the sasquatch population. Some will even say I'm wrong because sasquatch don't exist, hahaha. But some of us know that is not true. Anyway, even after sasquatch are officially recognized, I suspect that these questions are still going to be lingering and pestering us for a long time to come. I mean it is quite difficult to study an animal that is actively attempting to NOT let you study it. There are not many animals that do that, and for those that do, they do not possess the intelligence or woodland skills of the sasquatch.

Edited November 16, 2013 by JiggyPotamus

[dmaker]

^^^^^^^^^^^THIS and Yes!

 

I like to hunt hogs and there are more and more everyday..........as we speak there are many hogs having babies, especially here in the South..........Yep, I think there are more Little Big Fellas born each year than there are that Die, IMHO

 

B

 

So,more hogs = more Bigfoots? Not sure that I follow...

"  I mean it is quite difficult to study an animal that is actively attempting to NOT let you study it. "JiggyPotamus

 

Please name one. Please name one animal that you KNOW is actively aware that you are studying it and has consciously gone out of its way to knowingly foil your attempts to study it.  Please, just one. In the history of Natural History please name one animal that has displayed that level of intelligence. 

[Guest Stan Norton]

Hmm. Think you may be taking things a little too literally here. I believe the statement relates to the idea that sasquatch is, by all accounts, rather elusive. Not that it is actively purposefully thwarting attempts to study it. Try loosening up yourself

[Guest lightheart]

Thanks for the informative post Jiggy. Lots of ideas to consider here. Some have suggested that the bear population of North America might give us a rough estimate of the number of Sasquatch in our forests since the ideal habitat for both would be nearly the same.

 

The official wildlife management area website that I googled mentioned  the time period of one hundred years from the decline of white tail deer and other species to its robust comeback. I know we have many hunters on the forum that could provide more information.

 

I have been told by the Traditional Seminoles of South Florida that they consider the Sasquatch a kind of people. According to their history the bigfoot fought alongside them in the Seminole Wars as a friend. 

[daveedoe]

on the rise yes, because of popularity of the show Finding Bigfoot and the internet. In reality if the creature does exist, I would say it would be on the decline and very small populations. Take a look at the populations of apes. Are there any increases in those populations?  

 

read this maybe Bigfoot needs to be included

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Apes_Survival_Project

Edited November 16, 2013 by daveedoe

[hiflier]

Hello Daveedoe,

Kind of brings up the thought of Sasquatch poaching. Like trapping or hunting the small ones who could be less versed in woodcraft and predation. Really doubt that's the case at all, but the thought did crop up that in a species that reproduces at slow rates, like gorillas, even the taking of one, especially a female, would have an impact on future populations.

Good topic.

Edited November 16, 2013 by hiflier