Are Sasquatch Numbers On The Rise In Your Opinion?

[Guest DWA]

So why wouldn't they be increasing?  There are abundant populations of prey species, and other predator species are on the rise, so the general availability of prey shouldn't be a factor in population growth.  They also do not rely on any single food source, or even a restricted set of food sources, so a key limited food source should not be a factor either.

 

The availability of habitat should not be an issue.  They are sighted in virtually every type of habitat from arid desert to coastal rainforest, so they are not pigeon holed into a single type of habitat.  They appear to move around a lot, so they don't curl up into a fetal position and perish when someone cuts down a stand of trees.  They simply relocate.

 

With regard to human activity, we haven't managed to pave over the entire continent yet, so they can avoid us if they so choose, and if they choose not to avoid us, they can take advantage of the food sources we directly and indirectly create, which actually seems to be one of their key traits in both folklore and in modern sightings.

[and the rest too]

Nothing unreasonable about that.

 

Much unreasonable about "that's ridiculous and I can't tell you why but that's ridiculous."

 

The United States has become Deer Feeder Nation.  These guys eat some of the things deer eat; much deer don't; and deer.

 

Endangered?  I highly doubt it.

 

Edited November 26, 2013 by DWA

[Guest Stan Norton]

We have absolutely no idea of population size or status. That will only come after detailed and standardised census work. Even here in the UK (think crowded and well-explored) we have but the most basic knowledge of population size, status and distribution for many of our commonest organisms. We really really do not have it all in the bag.

[Guest DWA]

Maybe not, but there doesn't seem any particular reason that sasquatch numbers wouldn't be doing what the numbers of some other NA animals with similar diets e.g. the black bear seem to be doing.

 

Are there factors we aren't aware of?  Well we haven't even confirmed the animal.  But we haven't confirmed anything either that says rarity, or declining population, should be expected.

 

With something unconfirmed, one can't say what sightings represent.  What percentage X are they of actual encounters, let alone population?  We don't have a model for how that works, even though logic seems to dictate that reports of something not considered real by the society would be only a small fragment of encounters.