Is Sasquatch In Decline

[hiflier]

Hello All

John Willison Green's database includes witness sightings of juveniles. Between 1818 and the year 2000 reports contained a total of 141 juveniles contained in the witness' reports. I was curious about how many juveniles have been reported seen since the database stopped adding in data in 2000.

That would be 15 years ago, not that long really. I thought I'd try to narrow things down a bit and decided to only count juveniles for the 15 years prior to the closing of the database. I thought 15 years on either side of the year 2000 might show some kind of trend. From 1986 until 2000 the number of juveniles reported was 37.

I know that sightings are only known when someone actually submits a report so these numbers won't be accurate for determining and trends but I thought it would be interesting to pursue for discussing whether or not BF is in decline. The reasons for any possible decline have been talked about at length but the question for the thread is two fold:

1) How many juvenile sightings have been reported since the year 2000?

2) Do the sightings or lack of sightings indicate that mating pairs might be in decline or not?

I look forward to this discussion

[SWWASAS]

I think you have to further refine your definition of juvenile.    Are you talking infant or toddler or anything not adult?       By human definition a teenager is a juvenile.     There seem to be a lot of sightings of smaller BF who do not seem to be of an adult size.       If they are like human teenagers, they would tend to do a lot of risky behaviors like explore human campgrounds or approach humans etc.      Things more prudent and wise adult BF may not do.   If that risky behavior is a factor then including teenage BF into a sighting count for purposes of seeing if there is a decline may be skewed by teen BF behavior.    Just asking and certainly something that should be considered in trying to determine demographics.   

[hiflier]

Hello SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT,

Knowledgeable folks might define the difference. I wonder if those unfamiliar with BF that file reports though would make the distinction between a "teen" and an adult. Height and size would be the criteria most would use when reporting and I doubt any estimates of age could be determined in novice sightings. If I were to establish a cut-off point for the discussion then I'd say anything under 5 ft. and certainly anything 4 ft. or smaller. I didn't see much in the way of a defining size for calling a juvenile a juvenile in Mr. Green's database. Sighting a group that includes smaller BF's of course would make the size relationship to adults easier to assess.

[SWWASAS]

I wonder if there are even enough juvenile reports there to get anything meaningful as far as statistics.    Perhaps declines or complete absence of reports in certain areas that once had them might be a better indicator of population decline?    Certainly something to ponder.  

[hiflier]

Hello SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT,

I guess the truth is I'm fishing here. Does anyone know of any current databases that even makes a distinction for juvenile sightings? I've not seen any (see Question #1).

Edited August 16, 2015 by hiflier

[Old Dog]

One also has to take into account the validity of reports these days.  Since the advent of Finding BF and other programs, there may be an inordinate amount of bogus BF reports also.  Seems like whenever something becomes popular, the hucksters and phonies come out of the woodwork for whatever reason.  Also, where is the data extrapolated from?  One would have to access ALL data bases for the results to be indicative of a trend, and I'm not sure that is possible.

[hiflier]

Hello Old Dog,

Yes, what you say is very relative to todays vetting processes. They are more difficult than ever. But do the databases of today even contain a "juvenile" category? This is something I have not researched at all. The last time I had heard of a juvenile sized BF was the in Smeja thread. I am curious if there are any reports in the last 15 years of juveniles and if so how many individuals are in the tally.

If it less than ten then the debates regarding a sustainable population number may take on new meaning. The number of females sighted might also be part of the discussion.

Edited August 16, 2015 by hiflier

[Old Dog]

Even if the reports don't have a specific juvenile category, one can extrapolate from the stated height reported.  I would say that anything less than 6ft. would be either a female or juvenile, and anything less than 5 ft would be considered a juvenile.  Sure, you may consider that just like humans, a female BF could be less than 6 ft, but for this purpose, you have little other choice than to group the short ones in the juvenile category.

[hiflier]

Hello Old Dog,

I agree the defining lines can be somewhat blurred regarding size but your point about gender is a good one. Do you know of any other databases you have come across that specifically has "juvenile" as a variable with which to make any assessments at all? Even one that splits out gender? I know with all the work going into the BFF's SSR classification database and the Northeast database being compiled by Trogluddite I don't see much delineating in either of those areas. Not to say it isn't there but I haven't noticed those kinds of distinctions in my perusals.

In determining things like population sustainability or the diminishing capacities that interbreeding causes in isolated populations it does cause me to consider possible declining in the robustness of the species both in numbers and in health. If Sasquatch is as close to being Human as some intimate then one would think that even Human sourced disease could quickly wipe out small pockets of these creatures. It follows then that securing a type specimen may be more crucial than previously thought or discussed so confirming the reality of these creatures in the eyes of science and the public might also be more critical than we realize.

Edited August 16, 2015 by hiflier

[Trogluddite]

.... 

John Willison Green's database:

 

.....1818 and the year 2000 reports contained a total of 141 juveniles contained in the witness' reports. .... 

From 1986 until 2000 the number of juveniles reported was 37.

1) How many juvenile sightings have been reported since the year 2000?

2) Do the sightings or lack of sightings indicate that mating pairs might be in decline or not?

I look forward to this discussion

Hiflier, 

 

Trogluddite's Northeast database, still a work in progress has the following: 

 

Overall (1759 - present): 40 reports w/juveniles, 43 total juveniles.   In 25 of the accounts, the juvenile was accompanied by an apparent adult. 

 

1986 - 2000: 12 reports including juveniles, 12 total juveniles.  In 4 of the 12 accounts, the juvenile was accompanied by an apparent adult.  

 

2001 - present: 16 reports including juveniles, 20 total juveniles.  Four accounts included an adult (or adults) accompanied by 2 juveniles. 

 

Juveniles are usually described as 3-5 feet tall, although occasionally, I'll include a 6-footer as a juvenile.  This is usually because of statements made by the witness.  

[hiflier]

Hello Trogluddite,

 

Thank you for the data. That's encouraging but I have to ask one thing concerning the numbers. Is there any overlap of data between your fine  work and that of John Green. In other words is your data over and above that in Mr. Green's database. If over and above then do you thing the reports do not suggest a decline in numbers?  

[Old Dog]

So Trog, did you self label the short ones as juveniles or was that already a category on the reports that you gleaned the info from?  I don't recall any data bases that had juvenile as a category in their report forms.  My guess is that it wasn't a category on some reports, if not most, when the forms were devised due to it maybe not being a thought of item when developing the forms.  I also don't recall any field investigators asking the perceived age of the subject when interviewing the reporting party.  This would be a helpful category to add if it isn't already.  I know that isn't on the initial BFRO form.

[Trogluddite]

Hiflier, 

 

  I have all the JG database information thanks to your efforts; broadly speaking, I frequently found pre-2000 reports that were not included in JG's database.  So my database is more inclusive for my states.  Part of my ongoing upgrade is that I now include a "Secondary Source" column, so I can keep track of a single report which I encounter in multiple sources.  

 

 

Old Dog, 

 

  Most of the reports are narratives.  With the exception of the JG database, I don't have access to any organization's data in database form.  However, even in JG's database there is a field that describes the encounter.  Labeling an encounter as involving a juvenile is logical in many cases - i.e., a deer hunter in a tree stand sees an 8-foot tall bigfoot chasing a deer under the tree stand.  5 minutes later, a 6-7 foot tall Bigfoot comes running through, followed closely by the tyke-sized Bigfoot.  Otherwise, it's basically size and sometimes behavior (e.g., running, loud crying).  Some of my juveniles could truthfully be adult Bigfoots afflicted by a disease/hereditary/dietary condition.  

Edited August 16, 2015 by Trogluddite

[hiflier]

Hello Old Dog,

 

Sorry for interjecting here but I should clarify something. John Green's database also did not specify "juvenile" as a category. Only the term "small" was used. When I broke out the section on descriptions I separated out gender first with two sub-variables for each: Large and Medium- each with a column for the number seen together (one, two, or three). I then went on to break out the "small" ones into similar number variables of one, two, and three. It was in adding up these "small" columns together that I wound up with the total number of juveniles reported. The last 15-year increment in JG's data was something I thought might be more pertinent to reflecting any trends for the more recent 15 years since Mr. Green.s last entry.  

Edited August 16, 2015 by hiflier

[Guest]

After close to 9,000 Bigfoot/ Sasquatch reports read and analyzed and with about 181 separate accounts of multiple animals seen presuming they're members a family unit ranging from as many as 20 to two as in a pair it appears breeding is far from slowing down.  If motherly female Sasquatch traits are similar to human female mothers you would probably see less of nursing mothers until the infant was old enough to freely walk around and explore without close supervision. Most instances where infant to juveniles are spotted are when they are seen around feeding areas or in movement with family members from what I can understand of this.

 

3 Ft – 18    

3.5 Ft – 2

4 Ft – 49

5 Ft – 104

5.6 Ft – 40

6 Ft – 280

6.6 Ft – 68

7 Ft – 1,045

7.6 Ft – 988

8 Ft – 1,330

8.6 Ft – 46

9 Ft – 370

9.6 Ft – 13

10 Ft – 118

10.6 Ft – 7

11 Ft – 18

12 Ft – 28

 

In addition to those figure using five basic colors of all reported instances where witnesses describe Bigfoot/ Sasquatch colors but fail to give an approximate height, I use it in addition to what is already known by those descriptions of heights. Nothing that I have seen indicates a dying breed, although I don't track these by years either. If it is correct to presume these things go out of their way to stay out of sight, would it also correct to presume the numbers may be twice as large or even five times as large if they were to come out and be counted?  One legend from the early Great lakes North American tribes say when they arrived in upper Michigan "they" were "as thick as leaves on a tree," before they were dealt with.

 

Brown Colored:  1,708

Black  Colored: 1,583

Gray Colored: 264

White Colored: 177

Beige Colored: 83

 

Edited August 16, 2015 by Gumshoeye