1 In 10,000 Sasquatch Sightings Are Likely To Be True.

[hiflier]

Hello All,

Allow mw to expand on this a bit. Dmaker I apologize but I think this to be on topic so please hear me out. The Black Bear population in the U.S. is estimated at 400,000. So I'm not worried about Black Bears. Grizzlies are another story- much less but growing in numbers. In this context I can better understand Dr. Meldrum's statement. An estimated U.S. population of 500-750 Sasquatch is a pittance compared to bears. Something like 1 BF per 1000 bears. Given the rarity of a reclusive creature in a vast terrain I can understand a 9,999 to one chance of anyone seeing a true Sasquatch.

Am I back peddling from earlier remarks? After giving the matter some thought? Yes I am. This is based upon the usual premise of their existence of course. But it's only a premise; not a fact.

Edited October 11, 2014 by hiflier

[ShadowBorn]

Hello Shadowborn,We haven't exchanged much recently so I hope you're doing well. If I may respectfully comment? Yours is quite a subjective point of view. I think I can understand how that may occur as a result a personal experience but in being subjective it doesn't address what could be a very important issue. That being the population according to estimates by Dr. Meldrum is only 500-750 individuals. IMO it's a seriously low number by sustainability standards. So I disagree that numbers don't mean anything.I wish I could find a breakdown of the clans somewhere. Dr. Meldrum said he estimated around 60 were in Idaho. If conservation and habitat are the sensitive issues that many say they are then waiting for a type specimen to move on those issues may not be the smart thing to do. I've not heard the Professor express much concern environmentally but I'm still not that comfortable with the low estimated population count. I think numbers are very important and when presented in this manner I think you may agree?

How did he come up with these numbers if he himself has never sighted one? how does he not know that there might be several types of creatures? That these creatures are living in tribes and have spread themselves far and wide ? By looking at reports we or he or even us might just be looking at the same family of creatures. So there goes that theory of concluding that the reports will give us a detailed report of the number of creatures roaming the states.So this will lead to the number of prints that he has collected and inputed into a data base. Which could lead to an estimate of the amount of creatures by the number of different prints. But then he would still need to know how many prints were found per given square mile or what ever measurement he would need to get his total or ratio.

I believe that for myself and for my own sightings that these numbers really do not mean much. But to a hunter who loves to hunt deer looking for numbers like this means a lot. So yes I have some understanding of what you mean " That numbers are very important". But there is no real way to figure out how many of these creatures are real to any given sighting or how many are there are per given square mile. It is just not sensible that i see that numbers mean much when these creatures move as a family unit like what gorillas do. Except that these creatures are just way more secretive and are willing to stay this way for a long time .

[hiflier]

Hello Shadowborn,

Thanks for the reply. Since I don't know what the Professor knows or have his education or experience or connections to various groups and organizations then my own data is seriously lacking. I defer to Dr. Meldrum's estimate when it comes to population estimates regarding the existence of a North American bipedal hominid other than us. As far as I know there is no other source to go to. Even if the estimate is off by a thousand or two it's still a small number. Is the creature on the decline? I think that it is. Waiting for a type specimen to take any action toward habitat conservation is wrong thinking. My Opinion.

[Incorrigible1]

Curious, Shadowborn. From your encounter(s), are you able to determine the creatures live in widespread tribes, and there are more than one species, or is this supposition on your part? Thank you.

[Guest]

Well dang OP, I think I need to start a thread called "9,999 In 10,000 Sasquatch Sightings Are Likely To Be True." I'll quote myself in it saying I think it to be true. Why should skeptics get to have all the fun.

[ShadowBorn]

Curious, Shadowborn. From your encounter(s), are you able to determine the creatures live in widespread tribes, and there are more than one species, or is this supposition on your part? Thank you.

Incorrigible1

We have had our run in's,you and I. But you know fare well where I stand with this creature. I get this info from what i have been told by sources that I will not disclose and from what I have encountered. Even encounters that our Native Americans have told this and might have even copied them to the letter. It is the way that they hide their numbers that has me very interested and it is impressive. How did they learn this ? Did they watch the Native Americans? and this has been taught through out the years? This has me all interested .

[Guest lightheart]

Hey Shadow Born. I am interested in your understanding of their tribe structure. For example, how many would an average tribe consist of? Are the tribes part of a larger regional group?

[dmaker]

Well dang OP, I think I need to start a thread called "9,999 In 10,000 Sasquatch Sightings Are Likely To Be True." I'll quote myself in it saying I think it to be true. Why should skeptics get to have all the fun.

Then you would sound exactly like DWA.   Have at it...

[Guest]

At only 1 out of 10,000 being an actual BF sighting, he is only "1" away from being a flat out Debunker...!

[Incorrigible1]

Incorrigible1

We have had our run in's,you and I.

Conversing, asking honest questions are considered "run in's?" Odd, that.

 

Commune a little with the tribe, and consider being a little more forthright. Shed a little light, eh?

[Wingman1]

I completely understand where the OP is coming from on this, but isn't it a bit premature.

It appears to be another case of putting the cart before the horse. There are two obstacles

in the path here:

 

1. assigning population numbers for whatever reasons to a being that has not yet been

proven to exist is surely destined to fail. Maybe it's just me, but shouldn't existence be

proven first, then figure out the rest after that. Again, I definitely see what the OP is

getting at here but at this stage of the game it would be no different than trying to determine

how many ghosts are out there, and do they haunt in groups or clans etc..... 

 

2. Even after the discovery is made, it will still be next to impossible to study them in any

way that will provide the real data as to their behaviors, family/social structures, what their

diet really consists of, do they congregate in large numbers, or do they live in small clans,

what is the ideal habitat for them, are they endangered, or are there far more of them than

previously expected, are they semi-nomadic, and the list goes on. The BF will not just stop

what they have been doing for hundreds of years because we were finally lucky enough

secure a type specimen. I don't see lifestyle changing because we know they exist, but if

somehow they did find out that we are on them will make it even harder to find them.

 

I personally have no deep seated need to prove their existence whatsoever! They are better

off unknown IMO. They avoid us for a reason and are able to do so somehow! I really don't

buy into the loss of habitat argument either. If that were the case, we should be seeing them

more in our urban areas foraging for food and shelter. You don't need to apply any scientific

methods to answer that question, common sense will do it just fine. Years ago when I had my

house built, the area was roughly 75% wilderness. Now it is more like 20%! The deer are now

forced to come into our neighborhood to look for food, I have coons, skunks (which have

already sprayed my dogs twice and boy that was fun) Opossums, and big field rats. I say this

because if there were any BF's in that mix, they would be in my backyard as well. I would have

no problem with seeing one them, even if we were close enough to shake hands, and that would

rank very high on my bucket list, but I do not want it hanging around my property. The old phrase

A Bull in China Cabinet comes to mind

 

As for how many there could be, I do not have a clue. I could ballpark estimate it but probably

wouldn't even be close. I will say this though, Folks like Coonbo and others like him are the

ones who's opinions I will take over many others. These folks are out there and are observant

enough to make those estimations with any degree of certainty. But even they will tell you that

it is just that, an estimation at this point. The sad truth is we may never know.

Edited October 11, 2014 by Wingman1

[Guest Divergent1]

I'm thinking that if enough of them make it back to the tribe with bullet holes in their hide that the Sasquatch have probably already figured out that we are on to them. What they probably haven't figured out yet is that the majority of humans think the ones that do believe or know of their existence are considered to be misguided, hoaxers, or insane. Now that's some irony of fate right there.

[Wingman1]

That could easily be the case Divergent1. I would imagine that they would be pretty angry about

being shot and shot at while foraging for food and minding their own business. I know that I would be!

With my luck, I would probably run into an exceptionally angry one. If someone finally gets lucky and

tags one then you will not see me in the forest for quite some time. I have no desire to find out how

long it would take a BF to drive a human being head first into the ground like a railroad spike! I

prefer to stay a human being and not a human been.

[Wingman1]

Here is something that may help clear all of this up for you folks. I emailed Dr. Meldrum earlier today

regarding his comment that sparked the 1 in 10,000 debate. I asked him if he could elaborate a bit more

about his comments about the 1 in 10,000 sightings reports are likely to be true. The following is what

he wrote back to me ----

 

I said something to the effect that the animal most likely to be misidentified as a Sasquatch is probably a bear.

In an unrelated comment on estimates of population size, concerning the rarity of Sasquatch, I indicated that

there could well be 1000, perhaps even 10,000 bear for every one Sasquatch in a given state, e.g. Idaho.

That was a bit of hyperbole -- Turns out Idaho has about 20,000 black bear (http://www.blackbearsociety.org/

bearPopulationbyState.html).I have suggested Idaho may have 50-75 sasquatch by my rough estimate. So

that's what, 250-400 bear for each Sasquatch?

The point is, Sasquatch are in all likelihood very rare and an encounter with more common wildlife is more likely

and must be discounted objectively, before concluding an encounter with a Sasquatch.

Hope that clears things up.

Jeff Meldrum, PhD
Professor of Anatomy & Anthropology
Dept. of Biological Sciences
Idaho State University
921 S. 8th Ave., Stop 8007
Pocatello, ID 83209-8007

 

It clears it up nicely for me.

Edited October 11, 2014 by Wingman1

[hiflier]

Hello Wingman,

 

Thank you for the follow through. Being accessible is something I've always heard about the good Doctor and your effort helped reinforce that. He also seems consistent with the Idaho count. Makes me wonder about estimates elsewhere as Idaho is the only state I've ever heard him mention regarding possible Sasquatch populations. He sounds pretty convinced of existence either way. Thanks again.