Is Sasquatch In Decline

[Guest DWA]

I think it possible that the low estimate reflects incredulity as much as anything else.  We just don't have the info to say for sure.  Couldn't say what the numbers are, not even close.  But when one takes the mass of reports into account, and has read them, and seen all these people coming together guidebook-consistent in ways that it is to say the least damned hard to fake...then one has to take purported range at least as a serious possibility 

 

(and for an animal this smart, this mobile and spending most of its time alone...well, a mountain lion wouldn't be any easier to tab)

 

...and wonder what the heck is up, and why we aren't paying more attention to how *often* this is happening.

[MIB]

Plused for the first sentence.  I'd plus you again for the second if they'd let me.

 

Such simple answers.  TOO simple for some to grasp it seems.     And yet liberating.   "I don't know" is the one answer you don't have to defend.   There is inner peace in "I don't know" ... except, I suppose, for insecure people threatened by not being able to play expert.

 

MIB

Edited August 17, 2015 by MIB

[hiflier]

Hello DWA,

Beats the heck out of me. I read a couple of years ago that Dr. Meldrum estimated the Idaho population at around 60 or 60 pairs I forget which. I don't know to this day how he came up with that number. Perhaps equations regarding food availability, predators, competition, terrain, Human encroachment, who knows.

[Guest]

Hello All,

I wish to thank you for your input here. One thing it has done is that after a year and a half off it has inspired me to get back to work on John Green's database I've know for the past year and a half that once the chronology was done that I was only half way to getting the data into a more fully sortable condition.

The combining of the three different data sets, Incident, Creature, and Footprints, into a master set has been a long time goal of mine for over two years now. Ant of you wishing to see or download a revised version of these three data sets may do so here:

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/48732-john-greens-sasquatch-database/

Just know that it's still a work in progress and new revisions will be forthcoming. Also know that no data is being added in the process but adding new data is something John Green was hoping someone would undertake which is why he left the database open with the invitation to do so. Once this is in better shape perhaps I will just make it my lifetime endeavor from here on out. Can't think of a better way to pass the time and keep active and up to date on the subject. At least it sounds good right now anyway

 

Do you have one of J. Green’s original databases? The one I am referring to shows the witness information including names, addresses and the whole bit. If you do, what I am wondering is did you see any peculiar acronyms or anonymous witnesses?  

[Guest DWA]

Plused for the first sentence.  I'd plus you again for the second if they'd let me.

 

Such simple answers.  TOO simple for some to grasp it seems.     And yet liberating.   "I don't know" is the one answer you don't have to defend.   There is inner peace in "I don't know" ... except, I suppose, for insecure people threatened by not being able to play expert.

 

MIB

 

It is well beyond me, and may always be, the extreme pleasure or whatever it is that people get out of saying they know stuff they just don't.  "I don't know" are three of the most exciting words in English.  Discovery lies ahead of those words, every single time.  The thing I feel most secure in - other than that the evidence points to the simple thing it appears to be - is not knowing, precisely, what this is, and having that ahead of me.  Liberating?  Oh yeah.  Exciting?  Beyond.  Every time I am in the woods or driving through them is a potential heads up voyage of discovery.  Life don't get better.  (And when I hear "I don't know" from a really knowledgeable person, that is how I know just how knowledgeable that person is.  THAT'S an expert.)

 

The box scoffers lock themselves into appears, just to me now, to be one of the most exquisitely painful of human experiences.

 

Hello DWA,

Beats the heck out of me. I read a couple of years ago that Dr. Meldrum estimated the Idaho population at around 60 or 60 pairs I forget which. I don't know to this day how he came up with that number. Perhaps equations regarding food availability, predators, competition, terrain, Human encroachment, who knows.

 

Well, Idaho habitat is ...not that much, by Eastern standards (for one thing, a lot less water; for another, a lot fewer mast-producing trees, turkeys, deer, etc.)  I mean, that number for ID might be consistent with a much higher continental population than 6,000 let alone 2,000, if one assumes that lusher Eastern habitat allows considerably greater population densities, which isn't unreasonable to think.

[hiflier]

Hello Gumshoeye,

Yes, there is a Witness database. The entire body of work is actually a relational database in an older 2000 vintage MS Access format. Mr. Green had footed the bill for transferring all of his hand written data which was contained in three ring binders into digital format. I haven't paid much attention to the Witness info for many reasons, privacy being one of the biggest. I also didn't include the data in the downloads for the same reason even though the data is older now.

To answer your question I've not noticed acronyms other than say stuff sourced from the BFRO and other organizations. And yes, there are anonymous witnesses along with those who didn't wish to be identified publicly. It seemed to be more prevalent in the newer submissions though IIRC? I think John Green is almost 88 now and may still hold that data privately.

Edited August 17, 2015 by hiflier

[Guest]

^^^

The point for the question is that in one of the databases of his that I read showed some federal sources who although the agency was identified their names were excluded … which is remarkable. I could be mistaken but I don't believe I was.

Edited August 17, 2015 by Gumshoeye

[Rockape]

I'm of the opinion that Bigfoot/Sasquatch is extinct or if it does still exist they are functionally extinct and will soon be fully extinct. Therefore I think most population estimations I have seen are way off. I'd say at most a few hundred scattered over North America.

[hiflier]

Hello Rockape,

For all I know you may be closer to the truth of it. I've often wondered if the situation with habituators is that the last remnants are hanging around closer to Humans because they may actually sense or have found it to be a safer place to be. The wild is after all.....wild.

[OkieFoot]

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.

 

I would say your right on that. Bigfoot would be no different than any other species; you're born small and grow taller and bigger as you get older. Bigfoot aren't born 7ft. tall.

With so many reports of Bigfoot being around 7ft., even 8ft. and taller, and hugely big and bulky, it's reasonable that a Bigfoot much shorter would most likely be a juvenile; especially when their described as being more gangly rather than huge and bulky. Some people have mentioned this.

 

The adults would be the main food gatherers so it stands to reason they would be seen more often than juveniles since the juveniles probably are still in the learning stages of finding food and don't go out as often. They're not as adept yet.

So maybe there might be a few more juveniles than we think.

[OkieFoot]

I'm of the opinion that Bigfoot/Sasquatch is extinct or if it does still exist they are functionally extinct and will soon be fully extinct. Therefore I think most population estimations I have seen are way off. I'd say at most a few hundred scattered over North America.

 

That would be a reason people shouldn't be trying to shoot one. If some area might only have one or two "couples", imagine what would happen to the population if even one male or a female was killed in that area for "science", or just to prove they exist. 

 

[Guest JiggyPotamus]

The reasons you've given as to why this is a difficult question to answer are completely accurate in my opinion. Do we interpret a lack of reports as a declining population, or do we simply assume that fewer people are reporting their sightings? We could even conclude that sasquatch are responding to increased human population dispersal, or an increased human presence in sasquatch habitat, by migrating to regions where there is much less of a human presence or footprint. All of these provide an adequate explanation.

 

I have often commented on my belief in an increasing population, but I will freely admit that this hypothesis is not built on a strong evidential foundation. My personal hypothesis is mostly based upon my views where these animals are concerned, thus it may differ from the general hypothesis of an increasing population that others might agree with.

 

Your questions were 1 - How many juvenile sightings have been reported since the year 2000? And 2 - Do the sightings or lack of sightings indicate that mating pairs might be in decline or not? To get an accurate number of juvenile sightings for comparison we must ensure that the numbers come from the same database, and that the methods used to gather and place reports in that database have not changed since the time when the first reports we will be using were filed. That is a tall order, but perhaps a little leeway is acceptable, and the calculations could be made with ballpark figures. If we make the assumption that our numbers are good enough, and those numbers happened to show a decrease in juvenile sightings, can we conclude a decline in mating pairs? I personally do not believe so. There are just too many variables, coupled with the fact that we have no general knowledge on mating patterns, even ignoring the lack of knowledge where population is concerned, for us to draw a conclusion that is within an acceptable margin of error.

 

One scientific fact that is related to this problem is that of a minimum viable population. One of the first variables to consider is that of the ruggedness of the environment. I would say that the environment of the sasquatch is quite difficult, thus unfit individuals would likely be removed from the population relatively quickly. However, this is perhaps offset by the r/K or rate/carrying capacity ecological idea, whereby an organism can either produce a large number of offspring and provide little parental intervention, relying strictly on the numbers for survival, or produce a small quantity of offspring and contribute greatly as a parent, thus increasing the odds of survival in the offspring via parental intervention. My point is that a young sasquatch would have a relatively good chance of survival, at least in my opinion. So if their survival rate is good, population decline would have to be due to something besides a large number of dying offspring.

 

It is very hard to arrive at an accurate number for MVP, but the estimate I've heard Dr. Meldrum mention is 1,000 individuals. I have come across reports of the MVP for humans as being much lower, again, depending on the variables. I would say that the sasquatch population is quite fit, due to various factors, including natural selection weeding out the weaker individuals. But again because of parental investment, perhaps a sasquatch is more likely to die after its parent has stopped helping it. Or perhaps parents stay with offspring for life in some capacity. If sasquatch possess intelligence and are relatively social, I estimate that the survival rate would be much higher, thus the population will generally be larger. I think the minimum viable population for sasquatch is probably between 500 and 1,000 individuals. So are there 500 of them? I highly doubt this number could account for the widespread sightings. Even 1,000 is too small of a figure to account for the sightings in my opinion.

 

I wish to make the point that if the mating pairs are declining then we are very likely to see a decline in the overall population in the very near future, since the two are inextricably linked. If you are not adding new individuals to the population, once those organisms already alive perish, the population is not replenished. I sometimes wonder if we would see plasticity among the among the sasquatch population due to one of many factors creating change in their environment, including a decline in the number of available partners with which to mate. Plasticity simply being an animal's ability to modify its behavior in changing conditions. All of the things I've outlined above are meant as ideas to be included in the discussion, and are for the most part not a concrete answer. I have given my opinion however, which is that the population is not in decline in any respect. Like I often say, I could easily be wrong. I am very uncertain about most things where sasquatch is concerned. The only thing I know for certain is that they exist, which is what fuels my drive for answers.

[MIB]

I'm not sure whether to reply or not.   I don't want to be the wet blanket at the party.   However ... maybe someone should.

 

I don't think the measures have any value.   They might if we were only talking about dumb wildlife.   We're not.   We're talking about something deliberately, consciously adapting its behavior to changes in our behavior.   Sometimes even anticipating them and beating us to the draw.    The assumptions built into the question are false ... invalid ... making the connection assumed between the measure and the answer irrelevant.

 

I don't believe you can do science in such a situation, I think it is as Thom Powell said, the best you can hope for is to gather intel.   We are not gaining intel on an intelligent species while we chase the stupid monkey we imagine exists.  

 

MIB

Edited August 18, 2015 by MIB

[bipedalist]

^ this!

 

Population and distribution seems wide open to me. 

[HOLDMYBEER]

I suggest looking at the quality....not the quantity.....of evidence now coming forth.  How many times do we see corroborated evidence? I have asked this before and I ask again, when was the last report received where a witness, corroborated by another witness present and imagery taken of the encounter, made an immediate report of the encounter to all that would listen (allowing for site review by at least three independent parties), supported by footprint casts allegedly made at the site?