Guest Curious Cat Posted July 3, 2015 Posted July 3, 2015 Rough calculations of available habitat. The approximate US land protected by national or state forests, parks and preserves is ~12% or 1,006,619 sq. mi. Forested areas of the US average 745,000,000 acres or 1,164,062 sq. mi. http://www.fia.fs.fed.us/slides/major-trends.pdf BF/bear populations use open land as well, so this may balance for the addition of public and private open meadow land areas vs. too populated areas of forest for habitat. Using the average of the two, 1,085,341 square miles, gives sq. mi. of habitat per individual of overall estimated population of BF: 100,000 - 10.85 sq. mi. 75,000 - 14.47 sq. mi. 50,000 - 21.71 sq. mi. 30,000 - 36.18 sq. mi. 25,000 - 43.41 sq. mi. So a population of 20-30,000 BF would have a reasonable amount of habitat available. Canada most likely holds a comparable minimum of forested habitat, probably more. Therefore an overall population of 40-60,000 may not unreasonable, given overlapping of ranges on the countries’ borders. Map of the forested areas of the US for reference and comparison to BF sightings:
SWWASAS Posted July 4, 2015 BFF Patron Posted July 4, 2015 Good data. CC But human presence is a large variable in where they feel safe in a habitat. I can go all day in some areas and never see another human. Other places where trails and other attractions are located one can see dozens of people in a single day. With lots of human presence I think they move around mostly at night. When humans are not around normally. they move around and are active as they choose, day or night. This hot dry time of year, they need water and probably will move to get to it day or night. I think that is one significant factor in human encounters during the summer months.
Guest Posted July 6, 2015 Posted July 6, 2015 If anywhere in that range of 30 to 100 thousand nationwide I would think it would be the low end or below that. They avoid humans very well but so do deer. We see more deer than BF because there are simply more deer and they are not as adept at human avoidance. My guess and it is a guess, is that the Gifford Pinchot forest cannot have more than 200. More than that and sightings would increase. Too few and the breeding population crashes. While they may be very good at avoiding humans, they do make mistakes that cause them to be seen. My contacts have been mistakes on their part and unpredictable behavior on my part. Increase their numbers, and mistakes that result in human/BF contact increase. I suppose that someone could write a computer simulation that would give some idea of the numbers required to produce the present level of sighting reports in a certain area. That would be an interesting experiment.. Establish a test area. 5 by 5 miles. Have one hunted human in the test area with skills to avoid human contact. Send in a searcher and establish an average time until detection. Increase the hunted humans to two, then three, and keep increasing it until the sightings start an upward tread. At that point you would have established some level of population saturation where contact is more likely. It would take a great deal of time and lots of data sets but eventually the data would start paying off. I completely agree with this approach as well, considering all the data that we already have including eyewitness accounts, foot print cast and estimated distribution we should be able to see some type of patterns or trends in the data that could help narrow the search area. I was also thinking about the deer comparison, I think we agree that the Sasquatch is more intelligent than a deer, as such Sasquatch may be less prone to migrate to different areas to follow food sources. Unlike deer the Sasquatch may have a better understanding of the forest giving them the ability derive alternative food sources in the lean months. This resourcefulness may also allow them to make better use of their resources, allowing them to live on smaller areas of land. If they are not following a migration path and have minimized their support territory this could also attribute to the Sasquatch's allusiveness, and the sightings maybe as you stated mistakes of wondering Sasquatch looking to establish a new territory for a emerging family unit or group, or just young members venturing out to see the world.
Guest Posted July 6, 2015 Posted July 6, 2015 Good data. CC But human presence is a large variable in where they feel safe in a habitat. I can go all day in some areas and never see another human. Other places where trails and other attractions are located one can see dozens of people in a single day. With lots of human presence I think they move around mostly at night. When humans are not around normally. they move around and are active as they choose, day or night. This hot dry time of year, they need water and probably will move to get to it day or night. I think that is one significant factor in human encounters during the summer months. I was thinking about the need for water as well for the Sasquatch, The average daily water intake for them would be substantial considering there size, and a water source would be number one on the list to have in proximity of their territory. They may be meeting their daily water needs by consuming large amount of vegetation as many primates do, not suggesting I can say the Sasquatch is a primate for sure but I am leaning toward a form of primate, which would keep them from being witnessed by streams constantly trying to meet their water needs. The summer months, especially dry summers, could also contribute to a lack of vegetation which may be drawing them out and increasing the number of encounters as well. I have also seen post speaking to the hunting capabilities of the Sasquatch, are they generally considered active hunters, or is this behavior dictated by the region in which they are found?
SWWASAS Posted July 6, 2015 BFF Patron Posted July 6, 2015 I saw a comparison of the food needs of an omnivore like a human compared to a herbivore like a deer in some nature show. They showed a human normal food intake amount on plates on a table. Nearby was a pile of vegetation required for a herbivore on another table. It was huge. Since BF is thought to be an omnivore it can eat opportunistically as it chooses and conditions allow. A deer needs to be grazing a good part of the day just to get enough food intake. But water is critical for an animal of the size of BF. Since storage or carrying vessels are not known to be used by BF they need to be near a water source a good part of the day to drink with their hands especially in the hot dry summer months. In active areas when it is hot I think you have better chance of an encounter near a water source as anywhere else.
BigTreeWalker Posted July 6, 2015 Posted July 6, 2015 If you are curious about possible hunting and feeding behavior you could check out the What About the Bones threads.
WSA Posted July 7, 2015 Posted July 7, 2015 Randy...good observations, but I would tend to think an animal that size drinking with its hands is not too efficient. Yes, there are witness accounts of that, but I have to think they most often would trade the safety of being able to look about for a quick and easy tank-up by just sprawling on the deck to suck up all it can as quickly as possible. I know I have opted for that method many times. If you've done it too, you know that some part of the lizard brain starts to beep and clang...."Danger! Danger! Danger!. It is quite pronounced for me. Still, on hot day you can't beat it for pure drinking pleasure.
Guest DWA Posted July 7, 2015 Posted July 7, 2015 If anywhere in that range of 30 to 100 thousand nationwide I would think it would be the low end or below that. They avoid humans very well but so do deer. We see more deer than BF because there are simply more deer and they are not as adept at human avoidance. I'd actually say that the evidence indicates that deer may be better at it. North America is flat carpeted with deer; and you don't even start seeing them until the carpet extends into your very neighborhood. I've been standing within mere feet of deer for some seconds before seeing them, nothing between me and them. One of the things that spurs the hey-they-have-sooperdooperpowers schtick that is keeping the mainstream at arm's length is this skeptical presumption that in no way could the all-seeing eye of Homo sapiens not see these were they real. Well, Joes and Janes Average are seeing them all the time, the reports almost certainly being only the tip of the iceberg. What is happening is what all too often blinds that all-seeing eye: denial that this could be happening.
SWWASAS Posted July 7, 2015 BFF Patron Posted July 7, 2015 Randy...good observations, but I would tend to think an animal that size drinking with its hands is not too efficient. Yes, there are witness accounts of that, but I have to think they most often would trade the safety of being able to look about for a quick and easy tank-up by just sprawling on the deck to suck up all it can as quickly as possible. I know I have opted for that method many times. If you've done it too, you know that some part of the lizard brain starts to beep and clang...."Danger! Danger! Danger!. It is quite pronounced for me. Still, on hot day you can't beat it for pure drinking pleasure. Like you the only reason I mentioned that method of drinking is a number of witness reports of them cupping hands to drink. Another factor that makes them vulnerable when they come to drink from a moving stream is stream noise masks surrounding noise. Running a recorder all the time like I do, it is very evident that you cannot hear movement, because of stream noise. While I think the water would attract them, I feel blind hearing wise around a stream. I don't hear anything moving that I normally do away from the stream. So when they are close to a stream and drinking, like me, they may not hear movement from a human moving their direction. Throw in normal down stream wind and you could have a situation where you approach from down stream, smell or see them, and they do not see or hear you approach. It might be worth a try in an active area to station yourself in a tree stand, just watching a length of stream bed, as sunset approaches. If they have been holding off approaching, because of human activity, the presence of water and thirst may draw them in when they think all the humans have left for the day. Normally us humans are very predictable.
BigTreeWalker Posted July 7, 2015 Posted July 7, 2015 SWWSP and WSA I try to stay away from steams when setting up camp just because of the noise. I usually record all night when I'm out so the less noise the better. Of course rain and wind doesn't help much either. Randy, I think your idea of a tree stand along a creek is a good one. Daytime trailcams up high along streams is also a good idea. The stream noise and the breezes along them would help mask both noise and scent from the cams. But, no nighttime operation or the flashes will give them away, even IR.
Guest Posted July 8, 2015 Posted July 8, 2015 You mention setting up tree stands as observation points as well as trail cameras, I have never been on an expedition for evidence but I would like to soon. What would you recommend as gear to have with me as I go on these expeditions. My intent is to have an experience and accumulate evidence if I can of the encounter. What does everyone recommend?
Lake County Bigfooot Posted July 8, 2015 Author Posted July 8, 2015 (edited) Adam Davies once got the figure of 400 individuals in the PNW out of Meldrum, that seems like a really low number to sustain a population, or to account for the number of sightings, but if you really think about it that number may be more realistic than not, these creatures cover wide areas to sustain themselves, and if you looked at the number of Timber Wolves and Cougars in the same habitats you might be surprised how few they are, these are apex predators and by that definition they will not need to be as numerous, nor can than be, so when guessing at a population I have leaned toward a conservative amount as of late. I think that a family group may travel an area several hundred miles in circumference, imagine that grid drawn out and multiply by three in areas with the suitable habitat and you start seeing the picture. The Chicago area I live near is several hundred miles and offers limited habitat, I have postulated less than 10 individuals, and maybe less than 5 in this entire area. That actually might be fairly close to the truth, and also accounts for the lack of evidence that a larger number should leave behind. Continuing with this reasoning I would conclude the population in the United States and Alaska to be less than 10,000 individuals. Cougar's, which I would presume to outnumber Sasquatch to a greater extent are estimated at 5700ish in Oregon, an ideal habitat for both. The hunting range of a cougar is 50-150 miles and overlap to some extent for certain. Postulating a Sasquatch for every 5 cougar's might be an over estimate by my calculations, maybe one per 10 cougars might be in the ball park leaving Oregon with roughly 500ish Sasquatch. Well that is crude estimations at best, but I think I make my point. Edited July 8, 2015 by Lake County Bigfooot
Lake County Bigfooot Posted July 8, 2015 Author Posted July 8, 2015 (edited) Following the above reasoning one might postulate a number of less than 10,000 in the United States and Canada, that I think is realistic and allows for procreation and accounting for a lack of fossil or bone evidence or finding a dead specimen. All that aside I would not be surprised if the actual number was much larger or smaller, there is just too much unknown about these creatures and how they survive in the first place. On the home front I am still getting destroyed by working way too much... I was sitting on my back porch remarking on how quiet the bugs and frogs are, no noise, the apple tree is producing, perhaps I need to go and set out the recorder....till later.... Edited July 8, 2015 by Lake County Bigfooot
Lake County Bigfooot Posted July 8, 2015 Author Posted July 8, 2015 (edited) Recorder is RECORDING....And I hope that something of the variety that occasions these environs will participate. Of course it is only one of 10 or less in an area of several hundred miles so.....oh well....I once found two needles in a hay stack..... Edited July 8, 2015 by Lake County Bigfooot
Recommended Posts