Jump to content

Let's Do Some Math...


Guest

Recommended Posts

Calculating Sasquatch/square mile and Sasquatch to bear ratio using basic high-school math. Using sources from Wikipedia(1) and the Government of Canada(2), we can see that the United States has 155 protected areas of national forest covering 188,293,938 acres, and that Canada has 397,000,000 hectares of forest. First, we must do some basic math to convert hectares to acres. Seeing as 1 hectare equals 2.47 acres, let’s do the math…

 

1 hectare = 2.47105 acres
2.47105 X 397,000,000 hectares = 981,006,850 acres

 

If we take the static number of 981,006,850 and the static number of 188,293,938, we get a total of 1,169,300,788 acres (one billion, one hundred sixty-nine million, three hundred thousand, seven hundred eighty-eight). That’s a scary big number. It’s okay, we are going to break it down into a much more simple, less complex and easier to understand statement.

 

First, we need to take a random estimate of how many Sasquatch there theoretically could be in the United States and adjacent Canada. I’m going to push the limit and take a rough population of 5000 Sasquatch (most people say 2000, but we’re pushing it for the sake of the skeptics here). We also need to see the total bear population for both the United States and Canada.

 

Taking data from the American Bear Association(3), we can see that the distribution of bears (remember, calculating estimates of population are always difficult, so take those numbers with a tiny grain of salt) across the United States and Canada is 395,500 and 328,000, respectively. The sum of those two numbers equates to 723,500 (seven hundred twenty-three thousand, five hundred).

Now for a little bit more complex math. We need to calculate how many acres are in 1 square mile (you can use square acres or anything else, the numbers all come out the same, I think square miles just makes the most sense.

 

There are 640 acres in 1 square miles, with that knowledge in hand…

 

1,169,300,788/640 = 1,827,032 (one million, eight hundred twenty-seven thousand, thirty-two).

 

Therefore, there are 1,827,032 square miles in the United States and adjacent Canada.

 

If we take the average population of bears for both the United States and Canada, we can see that…

 

1,827,032/723,500 = 2.525 square miles.

 

Therefore, there is roughly one bear for every 2 1/2 square miles. Let’s take that same math and apply it to an estimated Sasquatch population of around 5000 (or any number you want to plug in).

 

1,827,032/5000 = 365.4064

 

Therefore, there is roughly one Sasquatch for every 365 square miles. Now, let’s find the ratio of Sasquatch to bears. If we simply divide the bears per square mileage divided by the Sasquatch per square mileage, we should get a good answer.

 

365.4064/2.525 = 144.71

 

Therefore, there are 144 bears for every one Sasquatch.

 

I’ve hunted quite a bit and have only seen a bear two times, and of all the hunters I’ve talked to, they’ve all witness no more than eight at the most in their lifetime. The chance of seeing a Sasquatch (let alone a dead one, I’ve never heard of a hunter who has found the remains of a dead bear) is next to zero.

 

I don’t ever want to hear these arguments ever again:

 

“Bigfoot doesn’t exist because there is not enough forest coverage for them to hide in.â€
“With all the technology we have and how easy it is to search the forest, we should have extracted a body by now.â€

 

No.

Edited by Austin M.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

SSR Team

Plussed..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was told there would be no math...

 

But I like your argument all the same. Thanks for making it (look) so simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Austin, I don't know where you hunt, but where ever it is, there is a great lack of bears, and they all must have moved near me! I had lunch today with my research buddies and some of their family members. The wife of one had seen 3 bears this morning (Sun, March 30) on a busy residential street in the city of Mission, BC. I saw 1 last year, crossing the lawn of a large suburban hospital, and then crossing the 4 lane street right in front of my truck, to access the 2 sq.mi. park on the other side. I have seen as many as 6 in 1 day, on trips along logging roads, and estimate I've seen about 500 in 50 years of hunting. I have more bear rugs than I need!

 

Having said that, I think your math makes sense, and find your ratio of bears/sasquatch reasonably accurate, as my ratio of sightings is 250/1, having seen 1 BF myself, and just missed seeing the 1 my son was hollering for me to look at, so I'll include that 1 in the ratio. I have never found a bear skeleton in the woods, only 1 cow, 1 mt.sheep, and 1 moose as entire sets of bones, and a few jaws of moose, elk, and deer, thus I'm not surprised that I've never found a BF body.

 

Good topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Llawgoch

Didn't you do this before?

 

All you have done there is assumed there are 144 times as many bears as sasquatch, and gone round in circles.

 

Bears 723,500 

Sasquatch 5000

 

723,500/ 5000 = 144.7

 

The rest of your numbers don't add anything.  It's all dependent on whatever your assumption is for that 5000 figure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is nothing more than confirmation bias based number mongering. You come up with an idea and then you try to make up some formula to support it. First of all, it's ridiculous to postulate numbers based on creatures that have not even been proven to exist. Secondly, it's nice how you just take the total area of a country and divide your guesstimation of sasquatch numbers. That does not account for, at all, the regional areas where sasquatch is reported to be hanging around backyards and picnic areas in decent numbers and leaving no evidence. Your approach assumes that the entire country is one big forested landscape. 

 

Sorry, this exercise has very little value, if any at all.

Edited by dmaker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Llawgoch

And incidentally, if you're going on pure ratio of numbers, I think we probably have more than 144 dead bears.  Quite a lot more.  

 

This link suggests that 1500-2000 black bears are killed every year in California alone.

 

https://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/hunting/bear/docs/AnnualTake1982-2011.pdf

 

 So I don't see how saying Sasquatch are 144 times rarer than bears means that, numerically, the statement  "With all the technology we have and how easy it is to search the forest, we should have extracted a body by now." somehow doesn't hold up.  If it is just a matter of numbers, by your numbers we should be killing some.  

 

I know people will argue that it isn't just a matter of numbers, and I'm not arguing with that.  I'm just pointing out that your numbers don't say what you think they do.

Edited by Llawgoch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Coonbo

I personally think there are a LOT more than 5000 bigfoot/sasquatch in North America.

 

They greatly outnumber bears in much of the U.S.

Edited by Coonbo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hypothetically, the bear in my garbage can is the only one that matters to me. Ditto for the Sasquatch who steals my chickens.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello keninsc,

 

Oh the irony of it all. The last figure calculated was 144.7 bears to Sasquatch. You post ^^ is number 144. How wierd is that? Wait a minute, don't tell me......... you PLANNED this from the beginning! oooweeeoooo. LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally think there are a LOT more than 5000 bigfoot/sasquatch in North America.

 

They greatly outnumber bears in much of the U.S.

You're serious?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Llawgoch

Hello keninsc,

 

Oh the irony of it all. The last figure calculated was 144.7 bears to Sasquatch. You post ^^ is number 144. How wierd is that? Wait a minute, don't tell me......... you PLANNED this from the beginning! oooweeeoooo. LOL

 

 

Ok, I know your post isn't that serious, but from a mathematical point of view I have to say that that figure was not 'calculated', it was simply assumed.  The assumption of 5,000 Bigfoots gave rise to that figure.  None of the calculations has any bearing on it.

 

Probably pedantic but I just want to make sure that people realise that despite all the figures being thrown around, there was nothing in there but a simple assumption.

 

I can't really see why people are still recommending that post.  It is fundamentally flawed.  And he has posted it before, a while ago,.  I pointed out the flaws then and he ignored it, and has now reposted again, and is still ignoring them.

Edited by Llawgoch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...