Guest Posted August 21, 2015 Posted August 21, 2015 For another perspective, I look at seven main specific points of activity - locations: Residential 23% of reports Motorist 20% of reports Hiking 19% of reports Hunting 15% of reports Camping 14% of reports Farms 6% of reports Fishing 3% of reports In defense of my earlier position that I do not believe Bigfoot/ Sasquatch are declining, but rather it appears they are highly adaptable, thriving and even multiplying in numbers. Reports generated from people in and around residential properties are the single greatest sources of reported encounters and it appears now. When you combine those Residential and Farm both of which are sources of food, it represents nearly 30 percent of all reported sightings and encounters. All remaining points of activity-location examined require people going into the wild outdoors where they report sightings and encounters. In Residential and Farm locations Bigfoot/ Sasquatch come to them either out of curiosity or food. Roughly 32 percent of all reports are generated through seasonal months of Winter and Spring with the greatest being Summer and Fall when combined together.
Guest ChasingRabbits Posted August 21, 2015 Posted August 21, 2015 Thanks Bobby and Gum. That's interesting info.
SWWASAS Posted August 21, 2015 BFF Patron Posted August 21, 2015 I think perhaps the rural residential or home property sightings are even greater than the numbers suggest. Those that report them are usually reporting initial sightings. If the BF continue to frequent the property, the home owners figure they have already reported them so why do it again, or realize the BF mean no harm and the property owners accept their presence. At some point they usually become protective if BF families are involved. It all depends on the humans and their acceptance of sharing the property.
Trogluddite Posted August 21, 2015 Posted August 21, 2015 Regarding food sources and smart animals. In WA State as per the SSR : Just under 14% of all reports (576) are when the witness has been at home, on their own property, yet in winter, this rises to 32% of all reports, which is a jump of 129%. Of those winter reports, exactly half are from the Olympic Peninsula. Across the entire North American Continent : Just over 18% of all reports (2,670) are when the witness has been at home, on their own property, yet in winter, this rises to just under 25% of all reports, which is a jump of 39%. Comparable Northeast stats, FWIW (504 updated/vetted reports): 124 (or 24.5%) of all reports occurred where the witness has been at their home (whether that home is a home or a farm). In the winter, 24 (or 32.5%) of 74 reports occurred where the witness has been at their home (whether that home is a home or a farm). My database was, the last time I checked, more inclusive in my states than the SSR, so while there's likely some overlap in the reports they are not exactly the same ##s. I think perhaps the rural residential or home property sightings are even greater than the numbers suggest. Those that report them are usually reporting initial sightings. If the BF continue to frequent the property, the home owners figure they have already reported them so why do it again, or realize the BF mean no harm and the property owners accept their presence. At some point they usually become protective if BF families are involved. It all depends on the humans and their acceptance of sharing the property. There are several BFRO reports which focus on one encounter near a property and then go on to describe additional encounters in the immediate vicinity. The BFRO does not generally break out multiple incidents into separate reports, at least on their publicly available reports.
SWWASAS Posted August 21, 2015 BFF Patron Posted August 21, 2015 Regarding food sources and smart animals. In WA State as per the SSR : Just under 14% of all reports (576) are when the witness has been at home, on their own property, yet in winter, this rises to 32% of all reports, which is a jump of 129%. Of those winter reports, exactly half are from the Olympic Peninsula. Across the entire North American Continent : Just over 18% of all reports (2,670) are when the witness has been at home, on their own property, yet in winter, this rises to just under 25% of all reports, which is a jump of 39%. Comparable Northeast stats, FWIW (504 updated/vetted reports): 124 (or 24.5%) of all reports occurred where the witness has been at their home (whether that home is a home or a farm). In the winter, 24 (or 32.5%) of 74 reports occurred where the witness has been at their home (whether that home is a home or a farm). My database was, the last time I checked, more inclusive in my states than the SSR, so while there's likely some overlap in the reports they are not exactly the same ##s. I think perhaps the rural residential or home property sightings are even greater than the numbers suggest. Those that report them are usually reporting initial sightings. If the BF continue to frequent the property, the home owners figure they have already reported them so why do it again, or realize the BF mean no harm and the property owners accept their presence. At some point they usually become protective if BF families are involved. It all depends on the humans and their acceptance of sharing the property. There are several BFRO reports which focus on one encounter near a property and then go on to describe additional encounters in the immediate vicinity. The BFRO does not generally break out multiple incidents into separate reports, at least on their publicly available reports. I have read many BFRO reports like that. The initial report mentions several previous or subsequent sightings which would not reflect in a database number count.
Trogluddite Posted August 21, 2015 Posted August 21, 2015 ^^ So long as there is sufficient detail, they do in mine. If not, I just annotate that there is reported additional activity.
BobbyO Posted August 21, 2015 SSR Team Posted August 21, 2015 Comparable Northeast stats, FWIW (504 updated/vetted reports): 124 (or 24.5%) of all reports occurred where the witness has been at their home (whether that home is a home or a farm). In the winter, 24 (or 32.5%) of 74 reports occurred where the witness has been at their home (whether that home is a home or a farm). My database was, the last time I checked, more inclusive in my states than the SSR, so while there's likely some overlap in the reports they are not exactly the same ##s. I think perhaps the rural residential or home property sightings are even greater than the numbers suggest. Those that report them are usually reporting initial sightings. If the BF continue to frequent the property, the home owners figure they have already reported them so why do it again, or realize the BF mean no harm and the property owners accept their presence. At some point they usually become protective if BF families are involved. It all depends on the humans and their acceptance of sharing the property. Bear in mind Trog I was talking about WA specifically there too with the biggest numbers. Your Northeast numbers for winter represent a jump of just under 33% compared to all year round, that's still quite a significant jump.. Horrible quoting there for some reason, sorry.
Trogluddite Posted August 21, 2015 Posted August 21, 2015 Bobby O, No problems. I see the numbers as consistent (higher in winter than overall). We're packed in like sardines over here compared to y'all out there where you have to use passenger pigeons to talk to your neighbors. In case it was missunderstood, I was pointing out the difference between our databases solely to establish that we're not working off the exact same reports. My numbers would not reinforce the point as much if we both were diving in the same data pool.
OkieFoot Posted August 21, 2015 Moderator Posted August 21, 2015 Bobby O, No problems. I see the numbers as consistent (higher in winter than overall). We're packed in like sardines over here compared to y'all out there where you have to use passenger pigeons to talk to your neighbors. In case it was missunderstood, I was pointing out the difference between our databases solely to establish that we're not working off the exact same reports. My numbers would not reinforce the point as much if we both were diving in the same data pool. I assume if you have to use passenger pigeons, it means you're too far away to use the hillbilly telephone.
BobbyO Posted August 21, 2015 SSR Team Posted August 21, 2015 Bobby O, No problems. I see the numbers as consistent (higher in winter than overall). We're packed in like sardines over here compared to y'all out there where you have to use passenger pigeons to talk to your neighbors. In case it was missunderstood, I was pointing out the difference between our databases solely to establish that we're not working off the exact same reports. My numbers would not reinforce the point as much if we both were diving in the same data pool. Absolutely, I understand.. Great stuff as always Trog.
Cisco Posted August 24, 2015 Posted August 24, 2015 About a hundred years ago, the white tailed deer population was about 500,000 and currently it ranges to about 20,000,000. If Sasquatch population is based on habitat and availability of nutrients, then it would stand to reason their population has increased and will continue to increase. This is assuming they are immune to human disease such as small pox or measles. The US alone has tremendous nutritional resources and millions of acres of protected habitat. There is no reason why these animals should not be thriving.
hiflier Posted August 24, 2015 Author Posted August 24, 2015 Hello Cisco, It would certainly seem logical to think so; or at least that a population would be holding even if not increasing. But still with the number of Humans in whatever professional or non-professional capacity in the woods at whatever given time of year one would think the number of sighting would be skyrocketed. Unless as some say BF knows when someone is in the woods and so make themselves scarce by incorporating any of several methods of concealment from tree peeping to out and out leaving the area. In deciduous wood areas this may not be as easy as in areas of thick conifer growth old or new.
Old Dog Posted August 24, 2015 Posted August 24, 2015 Hiflier, I think you're absolutely correct about BF's knowledge of when someone is in the woods. To prove this one only needs to spend sometime in the woods to know you become accustomed to your surroundings, and you know when someone or something else is in the area. If a hunter can find game in woods that they don't live in, then a creature that lives in the woods would have a higher sense of what should and shouldn't be there. This knowledge would definitely effect the amount of sightings even if the population were to grow, short of a population explosion and them stumbling over themselves.
hiflier Posted August 24, 2015 Author Posted August 24, 2015 (edited) Hello Old Dog, It would seem make a bit more sense especially in areas of higher activity. And too being in an area for longer periods of time allows the fauna in an area to become more used to Human presence. I was camping in an area of Maryland back in 2003 on the outer peninsula known as Assatigue. It's where the wild ponies roam at will. The third night we were there, and we were the ONLY ones in a 40-site camping location at the end of April, there were Sitka deer foraging not ten feet away from us. Something like that wouldn't happen for a while in wilder areas but I think things do tend to settle down after a while once entry is made into a region. Edited August 24, 2015 by hiflier
Recommended Posts