Is Sasquatch In Decline

[hiflier]

Hello Norseman,

 

I thank you for this. EXCELLENT! I should answer or at least address concerns many have with securing a BF sample dead or alive. It won't settle anything for those who will not condone the taking of a life for any reason though. For them there is nothing Humane or ethical about it. It does place an great amount of pressure on everyone to get out there and look for a body including the scientists and researchers already in the field. But it's a catch 22. They won't go into the field and search until there's proof of the creature. Circular argument. So, where does that leave the one who believe or know they exist and making sure they and their habitat remain unmolested?

 

The debate will be endless until either accidental cadaver discovery or an active pursuit of one is able to present it to science such that they will move to recognize the species. There are few choices in which to decide on a course to take. Taking all courses is probably the way to go. Look for the dead body AND make the effort to create one. Or just stay on the Forum and talk about it some more...... 

[norseman]

50 years after the PGF? We still have people convinced that a image is blowing this thing open.

They are still looking for the zipper with the PGF....what makes your image immune to such scrutiny? Nothing!

Edited August 18, 2015 by norseman

[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?

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.

 

Your argument works for ghosts, faeries, leprechauns.....if you have tolerance for that, more power to you. I don't have the time.

 

Yes, the requirement of corroboration will likely understate reported encounters but the numbers of corroborated encounters over time should better reflect population sizes. As knowledge and use of investigative techniques increases, there would likely be an increase in corroborated encounters if population size is stable. That is not what we are seeing despite a greater emphasis on interview technique, trace evidence collection, imagery collection. Encounters based on multi-evidence corroboration are on the decline.

 

You talk about science but this is not a matter for science. It is a matter of appropriate forensic technique.

[Guest DWA]

The only way we will get confirmation without a body...is with the huge commitment of money, time, telemetry, etc., combined with scientific courage, that no one should foresee looking over this landscape now.

 

Which is why I always say:  proof, however it happens.

Your argument works for ghosts, faeries, leprechauns.....if you have tolerance for that, more power to you. I don't have the time.

 

 

 

Nope.  Throughout scientific history, inconclusive evidence has been followed to conclusions.  There is enough evidence, right now, to lead to sasquatch confirmation wtihin months if it is followed full time by funded scientists. The situation that exists, exists because everyone is Sitting On Hands Waiting For Proof...which will not happen with the current commitment.  A team from a large institution or collaboration of same, doing what NAWAC is doing right now, would probably issue a statement within a month or so:  the evidence we have reviewed leads us to conclude an undocumented North American primate, its exact nature subject to taxonomy, but its existence, to us, absolutely certain.  All that remains is to collect the specimen.

 

Yes, the requirement of corroboration will likely understate reported encounters but the numbers of corroborated encounters over time should better reflect population sizes. As knowledge and use of investigative techniques increases, there would likely be an increase in corroborated encounters if population size is stable. That is not what we are seeing despite a greater emphasis on interview technique, trace evidence collection, imagery collection. Encounters based on multi-evidence corroboration are on the decline.

 

This just presupposes a lot of unnecessary work.  Really, the work is done.  Go to Area X and confirm.

 

You talk about science but this is not a matter for science. It is a matter of appropriate forensic technique.

 

Not if evidence is treated the way science has always - always - treated it.  What is stopping this field right now is incredulity preventing scientists from applying the simple things they know.  Other than of course NAWAC...which issued my above statement long, long ago.  They know.  No reasonable person familiar with the evidence could conclude otherwise.

 

Science.

[OkieFoot]

Hello Norseman,

 

I thank you for this. EXCELLENT! I should answer or at least address concerns many have with securing a BF sample dead or alive. It won't settle anything for those who will not condone the taking of a life for any reason though. For them there is nothing Humane or ethical about it. It does place an great amount of pressure on everyone to get out there and look for a body including the scientists and researchers already in the field. But it's a catch 22. They won't go into the field and search until there's proof of the creature. Circular argument. So, where does that leave the one who believe or know they exist and making sure they and their habitat remain unmolested?

 

The debate will be endless until either accidental cadaver discovery or an active pursuit of one is able to present it to science such that they will move to recognize the species. There are few choices in which to decide on a course to take. Taking all courses is probably the way to go. Look for the dead body AND make the effort to create one. Or just stay on the Forum and talk about it some more...... 

 

We also need to hope that if a specimen, whether dead or alive, is obtained that it ends up in the hands of scientists for study. And not in the hands of some carnival huckster or some other type of showman that might possibly limit access by scientists and thus limit their studies of a body. Remember the Minnesota Iceman?

 

Edited August 18, 2015 by OkieFoot

[Guest DWA]

The transfer of custody, from found/procured corpse to public confirmation, is the most consistently underestimated aspect of the whole enterprise in terms of difficulty.

 

It will NOT be BANG!  Followed by NY Times headlines the next day.

Edited August 18, 2015 by DWA

[hiflier]

Hello All,

Topic please. I know I can stray a bit too but I always come back to.....the topic.

Edited August 18, 2015 by hiflier

[BobbyO]

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

Plussed, I haven't known how/what to reply since I first saw the thread.

[norseman]

Hello All,Topic please. I know I can stray a bit too but I always come back to.....the topic.

I think what Im trying to say is we simply cannot answer your question with out first getting the species recognized, so that the full weight of science can solve the riddle. Otherwise we are just all rank amatuers stumbling around in the dark talking conjecture.

But I will say this, other species and forests that I think this creature relies on are dwindling and going extinct. Google Chinook Salmon........the PacNW rivers and creeks are too warm for spawning by 16 degrees! Warm water causes gill rot and as a result salmon cannot get to spawning beds before dying. If this trend continues? We could see runs go extinct.

Its not good news for any Pacific NW omnivore, including humans.

Edited August 18, 2015 by norseman

[hiflier]

Hello Norseman,

Correct. There is no way of determining any decline in a BF population. But we do what we always do (or better, only what we can do) and that is to look at the peripheral elements. We look at development, we look at encroachment overall, we look at changes in habitat due to things like fire, flood, drought, and things like what you just brought up. If the salmon fails then the competition from bears for things like berries , nuts, and other high protein/high carb sources may become a factor as well. Or they may move on to better surroundings. But things like bears and wolves, like BF, are territorial so Sasquatch young may be more at risk.

Asking about a decline isn't a cut and dried answer. Heck if I thought it was I wouldn't have bothered. Everyone is pretty good about putting their thinking caps on when it comes to stuff like this so I thought it pretty okay to bring it up. When to comes to animal environments many things play a role and a discussion on declining BF populations would have to factor in several layers of pressure for existence just as when talking about any other species. It was something I had been pondering for some time and decided I needed more brains in the soup.

Edited August 18, 2015 by hiflier

[hiflier]

Hello All,

Within this subject of decline there is a dynamic that is ever-present. That being wildfires. It's much more that the loss of trees and the possibility of erosion or landslides during heavy rain periods. It has a ripple effect in the animal world. animals fleeing fire are forced into areas controlled more or les by other animals and apex predators. The ones experiencing the influx have two choices. Absorb the fleeing populations, which may include Bigfoot, for a while until the normal territorial spread is reestablished, fight off the incoming wave, or maybe see it as an opportunity for consumption.

The ones fleeing could be ambushed if the resident population sees it as aggression, or competition for food or mates depending on the time of year. The residents of an area may simply and passively move on themselves and leave the fleers alone to fend for themselves in strange territory but that presents a problem as well. The ripple could affect rural towns and farms and their pets and livestock. Wildlife biologists and animal management agencies have their work cut out for them during a large fire as thousands of animals are suddenly introduced into surround areas in as little as 24-48 hours on more or less a permanent basis.

If BF numbers are low then this presents a very dangerous situation for the young along with any that may be elderly or infirm. This is just to show that the idea of decline isn't just the bulldozer popping in a road somewhere.

Edited August 18, 2015 by hiflier

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

I don't know what their population is like, but I know what the report data indicates from a geographical perspective. There's reason to believe that their numbers are actually increasing in some places. The Ouachita mountains in Oklahoma for example, experienced a sudden and dramatic increase in sighting reports 19 years ago. It's now possibly the most active place on Earth for Sasquatch activity. There's also reports coming from other places at a consistent rate, so I would think that their numbers aren't declining.

Edited August 19, 2015 by OntarioSquatch

[hiflier]

Hello OntarioSquatch,

Positive post which is a good thing. It may help in alleviating anxieties regarding taking one in for science. Either way science should have one. There's a saying that environmentalists use along the coast: If the tidal marshes go then so do we. The same could be said for Sasquatch as being our kind of wood canary. If it dies out it wouldn't be a good harbinger for us Humans. I think many here are hoping for proof because protecting the environment just may need a poster BF to rally the Human troops into action.

[Trogluddite]

I suppose one could also include in the juvenile category any reports of Sasquatch that were reported as being thin or not having a bulky build.....  

 

FWIW, this was a factor in characterizing a few borderline (i.e. around 6 feet) bigfeet as juveniles.  Short (human sized) + skinny + unnaturally inquisitive or stressed during an encounter would lead me to think that the witness was dealing w/a juvenile.  Of course, its an inexact science. 

 

....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

 

I'll leave you my database in my will. 

 

Hello DWA,

Agreed, but there are 400,000 black bears estimated to be in the wild; deer 30,000,000; Moose 500,000 to 1,000,000 in Canada and another 300,000 in the U.S.; Grey Wolf estimated at around 65,000 between the U.S. and Canada. Sasquatch is an unknown quantity. Some though have put the estimate at a mere 2-6,000. Barely sustainable numbers by most standards.

 

Any links to where you got that data? I'd like to peruse it myself.

 

Glad you're back in the fight, Hi.

[hiflier]

Hello Trogluddite,

 

Thanks, good to be back.

 

http://www.defenders.org/black-bear/basic-facts

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moose

 

http://archive.law.fsu.edu/journals/landuse/vol102/madonna.html

 

http://wildlifecontrol.info/deer/Pages/Populations.aspx  -U.S. 20,000,000

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White-tailed_deer  -U.S. 30,000,000 (2005)