Waiting Out Sasquatch's Extinction?

[hiflier]

Hello All,

 

The thought of patience rolled across my brain today. How many times have folks complained of government or agencies moving too slow or not moving along to one's satisfaction on a given matter? The question always seems to be "Why doesn't somebody do something?" But IMO doing nothing IS doing something when it comes to authority. I am of the opinion (and I'm not the only one) that IF sasquatch exists then it's numbers compared to say 100 years ago are in decline.

 

There has been much in the way of discussion and debate on whether government or it's agencies know about our Hairy Friend; on whether or not economic interests play a part in keeping the existence of Bigfoot a secret. So this thread is wrapped around the idea of government or any of it's agencies taking the "do nothing" approach in the hope that the Sasquatch populations, already small and fragmented, will eventually succumb and disappear from the face of the Earth in a more or less natural way.

 

With an estimated population of 500-750 individuals it may not be long for a creature who may only live 40-50 years (or less depending on conditions) will just quietly fade out of existence. There has been much said on the Forum, pro and con, regarding how robust or not the population might be; whether or not it's under stress. Let's suppose it's in a natural decline and go from there.

 

Is there a any likelihood that if those in authority know about Bigfoot and, if that's been the case for the last century, that anyone knows that it's population is in decline? That in just a few more years the whole thing will simply go away on it's own? THEN, and only then, to live on as imaginary creature never to be found? If that is true then what does it say about a timeline for discovery? How might that impact those individuals in the field currently looking for Sasquatch? Is time running out?  

Edited October 16, 2014 by hiflier

[Yuchi1]

What is the estimated population based upon?

 

I've read (Fahrenbach) estimates of ~50K population.

[Sasfooty]

They aren't going extinct!!!! Where did you get an idea like that?

 

More likely, they're waiting patiently for us to become extinct.

[Guest Crowlogic]

I've maintained that they went extinct shortly after Roger Patterson shot his film.  I recall a show in the 1980's where they estimated about 200-300 existed in the PNW.  The numbers we hear today are ridiculous.  Any population in the 10's of thousands would have been found out long ago assuming they existed at all.  

[OnlyASize12]

My understanding is that populations of other large wild animals (bear, deer, moose, catamount, pig) have been increasing since the 1960s.  This is in part due to increased conservation of land and - I believe - a decreased interest in our population in active hunting and being outdoors (at least away from well-marked hiking trails).   I know that my own state - Vermont - has shifted since the 1920s from being something like 20% forested to being more like 70-80% forested.  We are moving away being an outdoor-agricultural-driven state to being a road/home/office bound culture.  We are simultaneously creating more habitat for a large reclusive animal and being less aware of "what is going on in the woods over there".   

 

if the only evidence of extinction is absence of proof of existence, I don't think the argument is strongly supported by the lack of wanted data.

 

Tim

[Teegunn]

I would tend to believe their numbers would be less, not more at this point if they are out there.  Who knows really - we've never found a body or any DNA evidence yet, so it is obviously all guessing and circumstantial estimates.

[hiflier]

Hello Sassfooty,

 

It's not an "idea". EVERYTHING is going extinct. That's the way of the world. The only difference other than a major catastrophic natural event is time. As in when. Humans too have killed off a lot of species both large and small over the centuries-along with each other though one could argue whether that's natural or not. Books have been written on that subject many times over.

 

It was Dr. Meldrum that put forth the figure of between 500 and 750 animals. How does he know? IDK, ask him. You say the population isn't in decline? What proof do you have first, for existence, and second, for the species not being in decline. This discussion isn't about Sasquatch anyway per se, it's about the possibility of an authoritative entity knowing about Bigfoot and in knowing why nothing is apparently being brought forth.

 

I appreciate your input but this thread is exploring the waiting game as a possible reason we rarely if ever hear anything from "higher-ups". So please try to stay on topic. Either that or exhume any threads about declining Sasquatch populations and enter your thoughts there instead?

Edited October 16, 2014 by hiflier

[Sasfooty]

It was Dr. Meldrum that put forth the figure of between 500 and 750 animals. How does he know? IDK, ask him. You say the population isn't in decline? What proof do you have first, for existence, and second, for the species not being in decline.

 

I don't care how he "knows". It's a ridiculous assumption! YOU ask him if you need to know. And why not ask him for proof while you're at it?  After all, he's a scientist & they supposedly always have proof for everything they say.

 

I appreciate your input but this thread is exploring the waiting game as a possible reason we rarely if ever hear anything from "higher-ups". So please try to stay on topic.

 

The name of the thread is "Waiting Out Sasquatch's Extinction" & I said they aren't going extinct. Seems pretty much on topic to me.....

 

[Incorrigible1]

Just curious how anyone is able to consider themselves knowledgeable about the subject. Sasfooty, have you conversed with the creatures enough to gain your viewpoint?

[BobbyO]

Regarding populations, nobody will ever be able to get close to an accurate number because of Canada and Alaska.

Canada and Alaska, IMO, blows the entire subject out of the water because of the size of its habitat and the lack of people in which the vast majority are restricted, in Canada anyway, to within 100 miles or so from the border.

Alaska only has less than three quarters of a million people in it, with over half of those in Anchorage.

Canada's boreal forest alone has close to 1.5 Billion acres, Alaska has nearly 130 million acres which is more than the 6 most heavily forested States in the lower 48 combined.

I don't see these things going extinct any time soon personally, not even in the lower 48 let alone up there.

[hiflier]

Hello BobbyO,

 

Thank you. It's the kind of lucid dialogue I'm more looking for. See? I learned something by asking a question, and getting a mature response. I much prefer that over being attacked by unsupported viewpoints.

 

@ Sasfooty,

 

I don't care how he "knows". It's a ridiculous assumption! YOU ask him if you need to know. And why not ask him for proof while you're at it?  After all, he's a scientist & they supposedly always have proof for everything they say.

 

The name of the thread is "Waiting Out Sasquatch's Extinction" & I said they aren't going extinct. Seems pretty much on topic to me.....

Pretty uncalled for reaction there, my friend. For myself? I think how Dr. Meldrum knows would be interesting for anyone to know. Your response about scientists always having "proof for everything they say"? Hogwash. You said they aren't going extinct. I asked how you know. A fair question? I think it is. And you're right it's on topic, but deflecting the not-going-into-existence bit of your reply back to me? Nah. If you know whether or not they're going extinct? Then just say so HOW you know..... that should be easy enough without the drama one would think.

Edited October 17, 2014 by hiflier

[norseman]

Bottom line?

Without a type specimen?

Science will not address things like population size, habitat coverage, migration routes, etc.....

My personal opinion is that it's too incredible and interesting of a species to take a chance like that.

Proof comes first and then comes all the rest.

[Incorrigible1]

Thinking Sasfooty couldn't see my question, since she's admitted to blocking. Geez, are the questions I ask that much of a problem? Seems rather silly, eh?

[hiflier]

Hello Norseman,

You're correct of course. Nearly everything said about Sasquatch hinges upon it's existence. There are those that have seen them. So outside of vetting BobbyO, SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT, Sasfooty, bipedalist, and others I'm going with they exist. Body or no body there is something out there? I think so.

On the premise they exist, and even on the premise they don't, habitat should be looked upon with favor. Maybe we don't need a Sasquatch to save our environments for future generations. If we do it for ourselves first then Sasquatch and many other creatures will benefit by default. Everyone ooo's and aaah's when folks post photos of excursions into the forests. That should say something to all of us.

Hello Incorrigible1,

Just curious how anyone is able to consider themselves knowledgeable about the subject. Sasfooty, have you conversed with the creatures enough to gain your viewpoint?

Don't know if this helps. I think you were wondering about the not going extinct part?

[norseman]

They aren't going extinct!!!! Where did you get an idea like that?

More likely, they're waiting patiently for us to become extinct.

How do you know that? Maybe they are rampant where you live......but can you vouch for the rest of the continent?