Let's Do Some Math...

[Gotta Know]

^Wouldn't that be something to get. "On the record..."

[Guest]

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.

 

I've seen 1 Sasquatch my entire life. While I do hunt quite a bit, it's probably nowhere near what you do! Ahaha. Lucky!

 

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.

 

It's a rough estimate based on the rarity of the actual creatures and the number of sighting reports.

 

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.

 

How is it ridiculous? I really don't care wether you or anyone else think Sasquatch is a real, biological entity or not. I know they are. Total area of a country? Incorrect. It's the National Forests that are in the United States, read the description of my original post. My approach does not assume that the entire country is one big forested landscape. Th first reference I provided contradicts that statement, as seen in the map. Sure doesn't look like the whole country, does it?

 

 

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.

 

You fail to realize that bears are not exactly the smartest creature on the planet. Apes, on the other hand, are. But, I'm going to get chewed out by the skeptics here, because I have no "evidence" to back my claim.

[dmaker]

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.

I don't really think 35% qualifies as much actually. Not in the way that you used it? Ask your employer to only pay you 35% and talk to me about how much that feels like

 

I would take much to be half or more. But in the end it's silly to argue about numbers that you have just made up. It's not like you can point to scientific surveys that document and publish the number of bigfoot in the U.S.  So go ahead and make up your numbers and create percentages out of thin air. It's not like anyone can prove you wrong.  That's the beauty of bigfoot---you get to make stuff up and no one can prove you wrong. 

[Guest Coonbo]

@dmaker:   LOL!!  You kill me!     Although I'm no longer being paid as a government scientist, first running test programs for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and then working for NASA and the Army Missile Command, having retired from that line of work and moved on, I still occasionally teach University classes in scientific accident investigation methods, and communication in crises, both classes based on the events leading up to, during and after the Challenger accident.  And, I regularly speak to college bound high schoolers and University undergraduates about scientific and technical career choices.  As a part of my normal job, I apply scientific investigative and troubleshooting techniques to solving difficult design, engineering, environmental, and maintenance problems.  I've striven to apply these same objective methods to my BF research, investigations, "scientific surveys", and documentation. 

 

So, when you're ready to teach me some new and effective "scientific" methods that will keep me from having to use my apparently flawed data that I've obviously wasted years and years collecting, and that will keep me from having to "make up numbers", and will make your world all sweet and rosy, I'm all ears.  Oh, I'm also waiting with bated breath for you to teach me how to collect "actual evidence".  I can hardly wait!!!  Oh Goody!!  Maybe we can collaborate and publish the definitive field guide to Bigfoot together??  Huh? Huh?

Edited April 1, 2014 by Coonbo

[Guest Crowlogic]

If you live in Northwestern NJ you'll have bear to the point of being a pest.  I've encountered bear in the woods.  But there is nothing to indicate that there are 5000 bigfoot.  There is nothing to indicate that there are 2000 bigfoot.  There is a lot of unspoiled land in North America but the sightings frequently indicate that bigfoot does not inhabit only unspoiled land.  Therefore it is in the domain of human beings and all of the things human beings do that can record/capture or kill one.  This does not happen and it should.  Therefore either the numbers are very small and or they are way out in the wilderness.  I go with very small numbers way out in the wilderness.  I suspect there's under 1000 if any are left at all.  IMO 5000 is much to high.

[BobbyO]

I'll always say that you could never get any real decent guesstimate on population sizes on the continent in its entirely because of Canada and the vastness of it, the excellent habitat it has and the such small amount of people.

One to throw into the mixer though.

The Olympic Peninsula, WA shouldn't e thought of as a real core habitat for these things based on volume of sightings, habitat and food resources.

Certain researchers there based on many variables including footprint finds, concluded that here are highly likely around, ballpark, 50 animals there.

Of course nobody has any true idea how many of them are there at one time but there wouldn't be any real reason for these things to move a lot from the Peninsula, except of course to mate.

[Guest Coonbo]

There are places in AL, MS, GA, FL, LA, TX, NM, TN, KY, OK, and other states where, if you live there, you'll have bigfoot to the point of being a pest. I personally have had that problem in AL and MS and you can verify it in other states just by reading the sighting reports on BFRO, GCBRO and other sites.  I've encountered bear in the woods too, in CO, NM, AL, TN, KY, MN and Ontario.  And I've encountered cougars, wolves, and more bobcats than I could remember.  But none of this other wildlife is germane to this discussion, except as a possible food source for Big Hairy. 

 

But to the point of Crowlogic's post, if you spend the proper time in the field, with the right equipment, at enough locations in the proper habitat, and use methods developed by certain wildlife managers, and ornithologists, there is still plenty to indicate, using viable extrapolations, that the BF population of just AL, GA, LA and MS is at least 8000.  My time researching in TX has been all in the eastern, western and panhandle areas, and none in the much more vast central and south areas, so it wouldn't surprise me if just Texas has over 5000 bigfoot.  I've covered enough area to extrapolate that it has at least 2000. 

 

And as for recording them, there's been absolute GOBS of recordings of them and pictures and videos, but as we all know, that doesn't really PROVE a danged thing, except to the persons that did the recordings.  We don't really know if any have actually been captured alive, but it wouldn't surprise me if the gov't had.  And there are a number of reports of them being killed, and just as many of the bodies disappearing for one reason or another.  I've heard LEO's talk about MIB types of things happen with BF bodies that had been hit by cars, trucks, trains, etc.  And there are historical accounts of them being killed and killing us.  But I'm convinced that we'll NEVER see them officially "discovered" or acknowledged. 

 

I'm no longer trying to prove their existence to the world, but just trying to help those that want to learn, and when I'm able, to help folks that want to experience having an encounter with them.

Edited April 1, 2014 by Coonbo

[Guest Llawgoch]

 

It's a rough estimate based on the rarity of the actual creatures and the number of sighting reports.

 

 

You fail to realize that bears are not exactly the smartest creature on the planet. Apes, on the other hand, are. But, I'm going to get chewed out by the skeptics here, because I have no "evidence" to back my claim.

 

 

Oh, for Pete's sake.

 

I AM NOT QUESTIONING YOUR ESTIMATE!  For the nineteenth time, I am pointing out that all the calculations you put in did nothing apart from fog the issue.  You assumed a number and then did a lot of calculations for no reason to arrive at the conclusion that your estimate was in a certain ratio to another number, which was clear before you did any calculations.  Does nobody understand this?

 

And I have already addressed the fact that I am not saying anything about the relative  intelligence of bears and sasquatches.  YOU were assuming an equivalence there when you made a numerical comparison without considering any other factors.  Does nobody understand this either?

Edited April 1, 2014 by Llawgoch

[Guest Llawgoch]

Ok, because so many people seem to completely misunderstand what I am saying, I'll break down the original post keeping only the useful information and throwing out the stuff that simply obscures the issue.

 

1. We know there are 723,000 bears in North America
2. We assume there are 5,000 Sasquatch in North America
3. Therefore Sasquatch are 723,000/5,000 = 144.7 times rarer than bears.
4. Therefore we shouldn't expect one to have be found.

 

I contend that put like this, it becomes much clear that point 3 is wholly dependent on the assumption in point 2.  We have one known figure and one unknown.  The original post introduced a lot of other known figures to try and make the figure arrived at in point 3 look like it was dependent on a  lot of known information and only one unknown.  it was not..  it was wholly dependent on the one unknown, and therefore completely subject to the accuracy of that unknown, which as we see, is highly disputed.  it may be accurate and it may not, I have no idea.  The point is that the post was  flawed because it used so much information that did not affect the outcome.  This is often done deliberately in order to give statistics more apparent validity, although I do not suggest it was deliberate in this case.

 

I also contend that point 4 is not an accurate conclusion BASED ON THE NUMBERS.  If the argument is that finding sasquatch and finding a bear are two things that are not comparable numerically then I cannot see the point of drawing the comparison in the first place.

 

I hope that this is clear now to at least some of you.

Edited April 1, 2014 by Llawgoch

[Guest keninsc]

I've never seen a Bigfoot but I have seen a few bears, both Brown and Black, even found the skeleton of a dead brown bear once, but in all my hiking about I've never seen a Bigfoot. If those number are anything close accurate, which they really aren't, they are what we used to call a SWAG number. (Pseudo-scientific Wild Assed Guess). We can use whatever nice term or nomenclature you wish to make it sound like you were wearing a lab coat or something, but the fact is........it's still just a guess.

[Guest Llawgoch]

Who are you addressing that to?

[Guest lightheart]

From the map that was posted of national forest in FL it looks like we do not have much possible habitat for a Sasquatch. I found this information about conservation land in my state:  

 

Collectively, 9,366,499 acres of public lands are managed for conservation purposes, 

including some military and school lands that serve conservation purposes, even though 

their primary purpose is not conservation. In addition, there are 573,551 acres of 

acquired Conservation Easements.

[dmaker]

@dmaker:   LOL!!  You kill me!     Although I'm no longer being paid as a government scientist, first running test programs for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and then working for NASA and the Army Missile Command, having retired from that line of work and moved on, I still occasionally teach University classes in scientific accident investigation methods, and communication in crises, both classes based on the events leading up to, during and after the Challenger accident.  And, I regularly speak to college bound high schoolers and University undergraduates about scientific and technical career choices.  As a part of my normal job, I apply scientific investigative and troubleshooting techniques to solving difficult design, engineering, environmental, and maintenance problems.  I've striven to apply these same objective methods to my BF research, investigations, "scientific surveys", and documentation. 

 

So, when you're ready to teach me some new and effective "scientific" methods that will keep me from having to use my apparently flawed data that I've obviously wasted years and years collecting, and that will keep me from having to "make up numbers", and will make your world all sweet and rosy, I'm all ears.  Oh, I'm also waiting with bated breath for you to teach me how to collect "actual evidence".  I can hardly wait!!!  Oh Goody!!  Maybe we can collaborate and publish the definitive field guide to Bigfoot together??  Huh? Huh?

Field guides to imaginary creatures are the same thing as children's books. I have no desire to publish one. So, you're on your own there. Though it seems that the esteemed Dr.Meldrum has beat you to it

[1980squatch]

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.......   

 

Coonbo-

 

I'm surprised by some of these rankings, in particular IN, IL, IA being over states like WA, OR, PA, MI.  Can you expand on the reasons for that??

 

Those who are suggesting just a few thousand continent wide, that would seem very low for population support given the wide range.  I would not think that would be sustainable, and sightings go back many decades...  I've just always kind of thought in the 20K range myself...

[BobbyO]

Coonbo-

I'm surprised by some of these rankings, in particular IN, IL, IA being over states like WA, OR, PA, MI. Can you expand on the reasons for that??

...

I think coonbo has expanded on his reasons when he said he doesn't know a great deal about those state hence giving them those numbers just based on that.

I personally strongly disagree that the three I's would have populations anywhere near the likes of WA, OR, MI and even Florida.

And I say that based on the habitat available in them, with all mentioned having more than double the amount of forested acres in them than the three I's combined, bar Florida who still has more forested acreage than the three combined however.

But each to their own of course.

Edited April 1, 2014 by BobbyO