Let's Do Some Math...

[dmaker]

^^ My only point was that when it comes to real animals, if people in an area are reporting it in high numbers, then a person being in that area has an increased chance of seeing one. But the reporting part is simply an anecdotal red herring. It really doesn't matter. A more logical way of putting it is that if a certain animal is in an area with increasing number, then a person in that area has an increased chance of seeing one.  More simply put: if they are there in sufficient numbers, then you have a better chance of seeing one, whether people report it or not. The anecdotes are beside the point. 

[Branco]

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.

If there IS only about 5000 in NA,  there sure wouldn't be many left to populate the other U.S. States & Canada after counting the ones in, TX, LA, MS, AL, FL, SC, NC, OH, WV, VA, KY, TN, AR, MO & OK. (The "5000" guess is mighty low.

[Xion Comrade]

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.

 

I will definitely agree that there must be a whole lot more than most people would figure seeing as how these things in the intelligence department must be head and shoulders over any other typical animal in the world and don't seem to be to fond of being seen. It would be fascinating to know exactly how many people a year experience a Sasquatch(Hearing one, seeing one, smelling one, having one near em etc....) and never know what is going on, I'd venture to guess these things happen alot more frequently than would be figured by the layman.

[Cotter]

Population does not need to be big if the animal's range is far.

 

Wolverines come to mind.

JMO

[NathanFooter]

 My guesstimation from a year ago was around 70 to 80 black bear for every 1 Sasquatch. 

[JDL]

It's got to be in the 10's of thousands.  And why should we take anyone seriously who maintains that there are zero?

[WSA]

^^ My only point was that when it comes to real animals, if people in an area are reporting it in high numbers, then a person being in that area has an increased chance of seeing one. But the reporting part is simply an anecdotal red herring. It really doesn't matter. A more logical way of putting it is that if a certain animal is in an area with increasing number, then a person in that area has an increased chance of seeing one.  More simply put: if they are there in sufficient numbers, then you have a better chance of seeing one, whether people report it or not. The anecdotes are beside the point. 

I'd have to agree with your strict view of the probabilities, yes. They would increase, however small the rise, surely. I'm just coming at it from the point of view that, like with mostly solitary mammals, the statistical increase in probabilities is not enough to have any real significance. More than one BF researcher has made the point that to go chasing the latest sighting report is a fool's errand (and no, not for the reason you would propose). It is another way of stating your chances are just about as good, or better, if you spend your time to learn a particular habitat that has the predicted requirements for a BF population. (You also save a considerable amount on gasoline and meals out!)  Granted, it is not as exciting as racing from one "hot spot" to another.  I refer to this as The Keg Strategy. At the parties of my youth, I noticed some of my buddies would chase after the desirable females all over the house....with limited results. Instead, I always chose to stand by the beer keg and let all of them come to me. Plus, there is, you know, more beer there.   

[Guest Coonbo]

That seems completely unreasonable and fanciful. Where did you pull those estimates from?

 

I base these estimates on looking for and researching bigfoot in the field for a span of over 36 years, as well as the thousands of hours of research and study before the field trips to know where to look and then the almost-as-many-hours analyzing what I/we found. 

 

I've made dedicated trips into the field in 18 states specifically looking for and researching BF.  And I've kept my senses on alert for them, poking around and looking for signs of them in at least 18 additional states plus one Canadian province while there primarily for other outdoor purposes.  This has given me a pretty good database to base my beliefs on.  Find one, just one, more BF researcher/investigator that's physically covered this country and spent the hours in the field that I have and see what he/she has to say about the 5000 population estimate.

 

And please don't feel like I'm busting your chops.  I'm just letting you know where my beliefs come from.  In one of my research areas in Mississippi, I estimate there are 60 to 70 bigfoot in a certain area of around 300 square miles, or an average of about one per 5 square miles.  (And, incidentally, 0 bears.)  But this is exceptionally good BF habitat.  Several of my fellow researchers that have been in this area with me over the years will back me on this estimate.

 

Let's do some simple math off these numbers.  The combined areas of Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Mississippi is 205,549 square miles, and much of those four states is prime BF habitat.  The usual average population density is probably one-fourth to one-fifth of the numbers I cited in the paragraph above this, in those four states. Put another way, average square miles per bigfoot is probably 4 to 5 times more, or 20 to 25 square miles per BF. Taking the more conservative number, and dividing 205,549 by 25 yields 8222 bigfoot in just AL, GA, LA & MS, alone.  Or, an average of a little over 2000 per state (these states are very similar to each other in area). This doesn't count the other 45 states that could contain at least some BF, and there are other states that probably contain as many as each those four.

 

So, let's talk about those other states.  First, toss out Hawaii, they don't have any.  Based on my research, I estimate that TX, OK, KY & OH probably contain a couple thousand each.  NC, IN, IL, AK, CA, IA, MO & AR probably have at least 1000 each.  My limited knowledge about WA, OR, PA, & FL makes me think that they might have 1000 each.  SC, NM, AZ, MN, WI, MI, NY, MD, NJ, NH, VT, ME, & CO all have from a few dozen to a few hundred.  Let's say they average 100 each.  Let's throw in another 500 total for the remaining 16 of the lower 48 states and we've got an estimated total of at least 30,000 (Thirty-thousand) bigfoot in the lower 48 plus Alaska.......          Yes, 30,000 big ol' stanky boogers....  at a forest, river bottom, canyon, or swamp near you, just waiting to scare the bejeebers out of you, or give you the thrill of a lifetime.

 

Ok, there you have it.  Roll out the big guns and fire away.  But remember, I've actually spent the time, done the research, developed the personal relationships with the right people, and done the field work to support this semi-scientific guesstimate.  And I'll stand by it, and several of my fellow researchers will stand by it.

Edited March 31, 2014 by Coonbo

[Guest]

Coonbo - I appreciate your perspective and input.......many thanks! HWM

[Guest Coonbo]

I could swear the OP said " rough population ".

Now within this subject, a lot of things involve rough estimates, rough ideas and ways of thinking that haven't been confirmed because they can't be currently so for the normal members to take literally what he said about population and lambast the OP like they have shows really poor form to me.

If we can't talk about rough ideas, rough populations, rough guesses and guesstimates on this specific subject forum without it getting ripped apart by the normal wise guys, I fail to see why there is in fact a forum in the first place on this specific subject.

 

 

Bobby,  Well said sir.  And I apologize if I've offended anyone or ruffled anyone's feathers.  We need to remain civil to each other, even when we disagree - it's common courtesy.  Otherwise this now-very-useful forum will degenerate into its previous form, which wasn't useful for any serious education or interchange of ideas.

[Guest zenmonkey]

When Coonbo speaks we listen. man has more experience than I could wish to have and a gentleman at that. Its always good to run numbers and guestimations (sp??) but i the end we really don't know anything so no body get upset!! lets all take a second and speculate here!

[dmaker]

I base these estimates on looking for and researching bigfoot in the field for a span of over 36 years, as well as the thousands of hours of research and study before the field trips to know where to look and then the almost-as-many-hours analyzing what I/we found. 

 

I've made dedicated trips into the field in 18 states specifically looking for and researching BF.  And I've kept my senses on alert for them, poking around and looking for signs of them in at least 18 additional states plus one Canadian province while there primarily for other outdoor purposes.  This has given me a pretty good database to base my beliefs on.  Find one, just one, more BF researcher/investigator that's physically covered this country and spent the hours in the field that I have and see what he/she has to say about the 5000 population estimate.

 

And please don't feel like I'm busting your chops.  I'm just letting you know where my beliefs come from.  In one of my research areas in Mississippi, I estimate there are 60 to 70 bigfoot in a certain area of around 300 square miles, or an average of about one per 5 square miles.  (And, incidentally, 0 bears.)  But this is exceptionally good BF habitat.  Several of my fellow researchers that have been in this area with me over the years will back me on this estimate.

 

Let's do some simple math off these numbers.  The combined areas of Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Mississippi is 205,549 square miles, and much of those four states is prime BF habitat.  The usual average population density is probably one-fourth to one-fifth of the numbers I cited in the paragraph above this, in those four states. Put another way, average square miles per bigfoot is probably 4 to 5 times more, or 20 to 25 square miles per BF. Taking the more conservative number, and dividing 205,549 by 25 yields 8222 bigfoot in just AL, GA, LA & MS, alone.  Or, an average of a little over 2000 per state (these states are very similar to each other in area). This doesn't count the other 45 states that could contain at least some BF, and there are other states that probably contain as many as each those four.

 

So, let's talk about those other states.  First, toss out Hawaii, they don't have any.  Based on my research, I estimate that TX, OK, KY & OH probably contain a couple thousand each.  NC, IN, IL, AK, CA, IA, MO & AR probably have at least 1000 each.  My limited knowledge about WA, OR, PA, & FL makes me think that they might have 1000 each.  SC, NM, AZ, MN, WI, MI, NY, MD, NJ, NH, VT, ME, & CO all have from a few dozen to a few hundred.  Let's say they average 100 each.  Let's throw in another 500 total for the remaining 16 of the lower 48 states and we've got an estimated total of at least 30,000 (Thirty-thousand) bigfoot in the lower 48 plus Alaska.......          Yes, 30,000 big ol' stanky boogers....  at a forest, river bottom, canyon, or swamp near you, just waiting to scare the bejeebers out of you, or give you the thrill of a lifetime.

 

Ok, there you have it.  Roll out the big guns and fire away.  But remember, I've actually spent the time, done the research, developed the personal relationships with the right people, and done the field work to support this semi-scientific guesstimate.  And I'll stand by it, and several of my fellow researchers will stand by it.

That's a lot of bigfoots. Got any evidence?

 

So Coonbo, let's get you on record with how many you think there are. You said LOTS more than bears. There are a million black bears alone. So just how many bigfoots do you estimate there are in North America? 

 

And for the record, I don't give a hoot about how many hours you can claim in the bush or tales regaling me of your escapades in the woods. When it comes to bigfoot, I am completely done with colorful anecdotes and empty claims. You can SAY whatever you want. I'm only interested in what you can demonstrate with actual evidence.

Edited March 31, 2014 by dmaker

[JDL]

Dmaker, he says in the post you just quoted 30,000 in the USA.

I think he read your posts more carefully than you read his.

[Guest lightheart]

Frankly I have to say that I have great respect for the many years of experience people like Coonbo and Branco and others bring to the table. This is a deep level of understanding that few gain -it represents thousands of hours spent actually in the field actively learning,,,,,,, I wish they could bottle it.

[Guest Coonbo]

Letting wildly unfounded statements take root and grow here is not a good way to accomplish that.  There are over 1,000,000 bears in North America. If we are to take Coonbo seriously then we are to seriously consider that there may be, what, 2 or 3 million bigfoot in North America?  And this is the type of " rough guesses" and "rough ideas" that you think should not even have to suffer simple commentary? 

 

dmaker.  I will ask you kindly to please read and comprehend what is said before you start erroneously accusing folks of something that they did NOT say.  Case in point: I said "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."    Where did I say that BF outnumbered the "over 1,000,000 bears" you say are in North America?????  I did NOT say that.

 

There are very few bears in many states of the lower 48 that have decent to large populations of BF, such as:  AL, MS, LA, TX, AZ, KY, OH, SC, OK, KS, FL, GA, NJ, MO, IA, IL, IN, and AR.  And there are states that have fairly healthy bear populations that, I believe, are still outnumbered by BF.  NM, NC, VA and TN come to mind.  There are a few boogers in NE and virtually zero bears.  HI has none of either.  I figure bears outnumber boogers in AK, PA, ME, MI, NH, VT, NY, WV, MN, WI, MT, ID, WA, OR, WY, CA, and CO,   I don't know about MA, CT, RI, DE, MD, ND, SD, UT and NV.

 

So, I still stand on my original statement that BF outnumber bears in much of the US.  And I don't care how you count it:  In numbers of states - BF outnumber bears in 23 vs. 17.  In square miles of area of the entire US - bears probably outnumber BF in 60 to 65% (educated guess) of the land area, but I still call the 35 to 40% where the BF are more populous a significant amount.  If you don't think 35% qualifies as "much", then send me 35% of your next two paychecks and see if that feels like "much".    

 

And I'll be glad to accept your apology.

Edited April 1, 2014 by Coonbo