Is Sasquatch In Decline

[hiflier]

Hello MIB,

You do have a point and you make well too. I guess with the increase of hunters, campers, hikers, mountain bikers, snowmobilers, ATV riders, biologists, along with the deeper developemt of rural dwellings, not to mention the several intense industries at work in the back country, one would figure that sightings would have increased at least five fold. Toss in the public's awareness as a result of the TV shows and such and I find it difficult to understand a low sighting count. Sure it my be a smart animal but it's a curious territorial one also if one believes the hypotheses regarding the animals' awareness and intelligence.

As a fallout of all of this it just struck me as odd that reports haven't skyrocketed as a result of all the intrusions on habitat. But I guess if one considers the sightings of bears with their greater numbers then a relatively small population of BF's who don't wish to be seen could very well go unnoticed for the most part.

Edited August 18, 2015 by hiflier

[Rockape]

Population and distribution seems wide open to me. 

 

Seems to me that it is self evident that the numbers and distribution is very small since we can't even obtain a decent photo of one.

[norseman]

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.

Its well known fact that if a species cannot absorb the hit of science taking a type specimen? It's doomed to extinction anyhow.

Look at it this way, how many people globally know about the plight of the mountain Gorilla? Lots. And those people donate their time, energy and funds towards saving that species...... Can we say the same thing about Pixies and Gnomes? No. Because in the eyes of science? They dont exist!

This is where we are with Sasquatch. And I dont care how smart or dumb they are, it matters not. The activities of modern man directly affect every living creature in a impacted area that uses the land to sustain themselves. Why do native Americans live on reservations now? Its because the Buffalo are gone or the Salmon are gone........what sustained them was wiped out by European activities.

Without a body we have no idea about anything because the real weight of science hasnt been applied to the species. But the longer we wait? The more of a gamble it becomes as natural resources are greedily consumed by humans to the detriment of other species.

Sasquatch evidently has no defense against the chainsaw, bulldozer or asphault parking lot. Or at least I havent heard about a group of Sasquatch attacking construction crews to defend their favorite berry patch, fishing hole or hollow tree truck from destruction?

[bipedalist]

In Beelart and Olson's new book, a Sasquatch defended his fishing hole in Oregon by backing the fisherman up and out to the road at the tip of his rod.

[Guest]

 

 

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.

Its well known fact that if a species cannot absorb the hit of science taking a type specimen? It's doomed to extinction anyhow.

Look at it this way, how many people globally know about the plight of the mountain Gorilla? Lots. And those people donate their time, energy and funds towards saving that species...... Can we say the same thing about Pixies and Gnomes? No. Because in the eyes of science? They dont exist!

This is where we are with Sasquatch. And I dont care how smart or dumb they are, it matters not. The activities of modern man directly affect every living creature in a impacted area that uses the land to sustain themselves. Why do native Americans live on reservations now? Its because the Buffalo are gone or the Salmon are gone........what sustained them was wiped out by European activities.

Without a body we have no idea about anything because the real weight of science hasnt been applied to the species. But the longer we wait? The more of a gamble it becomes as natural resources are greedily consumed by humans to the detriment of other species.

Sasquatch evidently has no defense against the chainsaw, bulldozer or asphault parking lot. Or at least I havent heard about a group of Sasquatch attacking construction crews to defend their favorite berry patch, fishing hole or hollow tree truck from destruction?

 

 

Good post Norse!  Whether driven by corporate greed or need I am still unconvinced there is any reason for  mood indigo over declining Bigfoot/ Sasquatch population since information being reported simply doesn’t support that.   

 

We as modern society tend to presume we know where every path leads and ends and where they intersect I mean, as human kind who once believed the world to be flat later discovers more than 2 million species since 2004, and yet science still speculates millions more await discovery.  

 

These things are reported on all six continents under very different names and environmental conditions and I don’t believe that is accidental.  With exception to Antarctica, we also likely overlook the obvious. Bigfoot/ Sasquatch have survived a very long time and not because they haven’t learned anything over millennia either.

[Guest ChasingRabbits]

 

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.

 

 

Not to mention, I suspect children would be babysat or kept somewhere for their safety, while the adults did their business of food gathering, similar to what we do to our own children.

[Guest]

One point that I failed to mention to further buttress my contention there is no decline in Bigfoot/ Sasquatch population is this: TIME / SEASONS /GESTATION

An overwhelming number of encounters occur on Fridays or Saturday’s and between the months of June, July August. Those days and months coincidentally correspond with times when more people would not be working and are out about, and during the peak summertime months when most people are more active outdoors. It stands to reason if there are more people out and about chance encounters increase and decrease during middle of week when more people are working and colder months when less time is spent outdoors.

Does Bigfoot/ Sasquatch gestation periods correspond with warm weather or not?

 

Edited August 18, 2015 by Gumshoeye

[hiflier]

Hello Gumshoeye,

That question may be even more complicated than whether or not they're in decline. On the surface since no one could know the age of a juvenile one cannot work back to a time of conception. If Bigfoot is indeed an ape/Human hybrid then one would have to know or weigh a point where the creature is more animal than Human. Many animals go into "season"; Humans do not. If Bigfoot is closer to Human then I would doubt even with intelligence that the "decision" to have offspring only in the vernal season would be a conscious choice. If closer to animal the deciding factor would be a female in a seasonal estrus.

I don't know if this dynamic occurs in apes such as Gorillas or Chimpanzees. It apparently doesn't matter to Bonobos but with Bonobos the females may only seasonally ovulate. As such it would take a bit of research to formulate even an opinion; never mind a basic one like how much Human is BF. Or how much one even thinks it exists in the first place. Gestation facts and factors are simply too far down the road and often are one of the last things one discovers about a species.

[Guest DWA]

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?

If you saw one...you saw one.  Irrespective of corroboration.

 

Scientists have been able to use lack of corroboration (i.e., proof) as the excuse to not even get involved in the question.  That's not science.  It's a really bad excuse.  If no other witness was present; if no camera was present; if there were no tracks; ....and whoa wait a minute!  that thing in red there!  That is gonna be, for most encounters...ZERO, and as it should be, because no one should report anything to any screaming idiot who will just laugh at it.

 

Bottom line:  to restrict "valid" reports to "corroborated" reports will, inevitably, vastly understate the number of actual encounters, and is simply bad science driven by incredulity, something that should never drive scientific endeavor.  It is the public's fault! that the public's attitude is obscuring the truth from the public.  Plain and simple.

 

If you saw one...you saw one.

[Guest]

You made a good point DWA.

[norseman]

In Beelart and Olson's new book, a Sasquatch defended his fishing hole in Oregon by backing the fisherman up and out to the road at the tip of his rod.

I can see that. But what we dont see is them organizing an army and destroying a dam that destroyed the fishing hole.

[hiflier]

Hello DWA,

 

....Scientists have been able to use lack of corroboration (i.e., proof)....

I'm not saying this simply to argue with you but I totally disagree that corroboration is "proof". To think so can put one a slippery slope away from science and more into the realm of anecdotal evidence. And we already know A/E is not proof. I think care must be taken when one endeavors to sway opinion on such matters as it tends to muddy the waters regarding what is acceptable for scientific verification of existence. Somewhere there needs to be a hard line of WHAT is scientifically acceptable to warrant the investment in time, money and resources over and above what and who is already in the field, and what is not.

Edited August 18, 2015 by hiflier

[Guest DWA]

That doesn't really change my point, which is:  if you saw one...you saw one.

 

(And I admit that I didn't take a lot of time on that part, and just decided to post it because it didn't change my point.)

 

Science's responsibility is to review the evidence for consistencies pertaining to the bulk ot it.  If there don't appear to be any (Nessie, right now, looks like an example of that, in fact most "lake monsters" do), then there might not be something for scientists to search on.  But all anecdotes count as reviewable evidence; and a lot of the ones I would be looking at would be sightings or track finds by one single unaccompanied person, zero photos.  OK, Hopefully track finds would come with photos.  But I could consider good solid descriptions, and, you know, casts of a few of them would be nice.  I found tracks in 1986...and brought home no evidence.  Didn't care who saw the evidence.  I'd seen them.  And had a witness.  Many witnesses think that way.

 

The evidence stands right now on volume and consistency.  If I got there - and if a number of scientists have gotten there - it's valid to search on, regardless "corroboration."

Edited August 18, 2015 by DWA

[hiflier]

Hello DWA,

 

I can certainly agree on principle but that won't put mainstream science in the loop. To elaborate a bit though I think there's more interest in science circles than they let on. Humans by nature are a curious bunch and scientists are no different and maybe are scientists because they are more curious to solve mysteries than most. I'm willing to not lump them altogether with the exception that few will take risks on something that has no physical specimen and an awful lot of hoaxing and woo.

 

I say we fund Norseman or NAWAC and get this over with one way or another- soon. You want science on our side? Get 'em a body.

 

But this thread is about Sasquatch decline which kind of goes hand in hand with securing a type specimen perhaps so what's say we try to get back on topic

Edited August 18, 2015 by hiflier

[norseman]

http://www.animalethics.org.au/policies-and-guidelines/wildlife-research/voucher-specimens