Sasquatch Adaptability and Survival

[Mendoza]

Regarding the claim that the Bigfoot population has increased since the 1950s, or within any time frame for that matter, I don't think we have enough quantifiable analysis of reliable data to make any such assertion without a great deal of hesitation.

 

And so it is with a great deal of (understated) hesitation that I report that my own preliminary work in this area suggests that the Bigfoot population is not growing and is in fact under threat.  While undertaking a preliminary analysis (following the analytical method of Glickman) of Bigfoot sightings at the county level, I plotted the probable Bigfoot populations on a map, and immediately discovered evidence of population fragmentation--namely, areas that must have been contiguous at some point in the past, but no longer are.

 

Fragmentation is, of course, a well understood threat to any animal species, and a loss of habitat results almost universally in a decrease in population.  If subsequent analysis bears out the results of my preliminary work, then I can say that the Bigfoot population is certainly not what it used to be when the populations were geographically contiguous.  When this decline happened, and if it continues at the present day, is another question.

 

I have some other Bigfoot-related work to finish up before I move on to something that could produce more definitive results on this question.  Hopefully I can get to it within the coming year.

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

11 hours ago, MIB said:

Ummmm ... ok.    On the plus, I commend your cut and paste skills.   On the minus, you seem to have forgotten to state what your point is.     What are you trying to say?

Well, to enlighten yourself or others requiring illumination it seems that inaccurate assertions were made that my paste answered. 

So read the post I replied to and note the similarities and the differences and you may have your answer.

 

It regards primarily the mention of a large number of European species of primates, and the use of the word primate itself in that context.

Perhaps Guy was referring to European Lemurs, though?

 

The point is that use of Wikipedia before committing your post to eternity post to correct drifts in logic that may not be substantiated on further rumination post reference, or even to have been intended absent the correct definition.

 

Sometimes there really isn't any controversy.

[Lake County Bigfooot]

14 hours ago, Mendoza said:

Regarding the claim that the Bigfoot population has increased since the 1950s, or within any time frame for that matter, I don't think we have enough quantifiable analysis of reliable data to make any such assertion without a great deal of hesitation.

 

And so it is with a great deal of (understated) hesitation that I report that my own preliminary work in this area suggests that the Bigfoot population is not growing and is in fact under threat.  While undertaking a preliminary analysis (following the analytical method of Glickman) of Bigfoot sightings at the county level, I plotted the probable Bigfoot populations on a map, and immediately discovered evidence of population fragmentation--namely, areas that must have been contiguous at some point in the past, but no longer are.

 

Fragmentation is, of course, a well understood threat to any animal species, and a loss of habitat results almost universally in a decrease in population.  If subsequent analysis bears out the results of my preliminary work, then I can say that the Bigfoot population is certainly not what it used to be when the populations were geographically contiguous.  When this decline happened, and if it continues at the present day, is another question.

 

I have some other Bigfoot-related work to finish up before I move on to something that could produce more definitive results on this question.  Hopefully I can get to it within the coming year.

I agree that population corresponds to habitat, and that habitat is essential to have any population present. I have suggested that I think about 3-5 creatures might inhabit a 300-500 mile area, that might be less or greater as it corresponds to the type of habitat present. No matter how we add it up, we cannot come up with a very large population of these creatures, at least not by any metric I see. Sighting data is certainly misleading, it is based on human population and presence. So the more humans present the more sightings will occur. That is where humans come into contact with the proper habitat of this creature. It would not take a very large population to account for the number of sightings we have on file, in fact that seems to indicate small numbers, say less than 10,000. When we consider that the mountain gorilla population is something around 500 world wide, well maybe the Sasquatch population is much smaller than thought.

 

The notion that the population has increased since the 1950s corresponds to increases in deer and elk herds since that time, as well as habitat restoration.  I hope you do complete your research and present some of it here, it is always enlightening to look at the matter on paper with statistical data.

 

I have done some plotting myself concerning my region, it amazed me the similarities of habitat for each sighting and the correspondence to rivers and streams. It also pointed out that some movements seem to occur, and very possibly the same creatures being seen from north to south and east and west. If that number was 3 creatures, then those three have been detected fairly regularly, which gives credence to the notion that these creatures are not quite as elusive as some suggest, only elusive in the fact there are so few of them to search for....

Edited December 12, 2016 by Lake County Bigfooot

[MIB]

Regarding habitat, I think the assumption that suitable habitat has decreased is based in a flawed, subtly anthropocentric, view of what that habitat CAN be, which, in turn, is rooted in ape-camp thinking about what sasquatch is.    One of the questions we should always ask is "If I went feral, where would I get resources?"    The answer could sometimes be "just as far from other people as I can get", but at other times, the availability of resources which are just cast-asides from the general population may be the difference between life and death overriding the urge not to be seen.   Thus we have reports of dumpster diving, crop raiding, etc.   

 

I have to agree with LCB, though ... for the most part, sightings are closely related to contiguous cover, water, food ... travel corridors if not home areas.   Occasionally there's an outlying, non-conforming data point.   Those can be interesting to study.   They might be hoax, they might be misidentification, but if legit, they might give us deeper insight.

 

MIB

[hiflier]

We have the data. Period. We have all the data that we need short of an actual body. What we do not have is an analyst who will take that data and develop it. In John Green's book he attempted to do that by summarizing over 1,300 reports and did a very good job of it too. Now we have much more data to work with and seem to add to the pile often. So having someone or a group of someones to perform the kind of data mining that looks at everything and comes up with not only a clear picture of expectation but a plan to utilize that expectation. seems like the next logical step

 

Science gains credibility through rigorous testing- testing that succeeds in gaining repeatable results. That applies to the animal kingdom as well as the behavioral sciences. Animals- including Humans- are predictable. And the backbone of scientific testing is to be able to predict results by showing that their tests are repeatable. So prediction is possible. It would be the Holy Grail as far as Sasquatch is concerned if we could predict movement by factoring in everything the data is currently telling us. We all know this. But as yet I've seen no one taking that data and deeply analyzing it. Sure we have general ideas from the information but that's not science. Analysis would be science.

 

I have finished my work on the data I've been working on and am now positioned to analyze what is there. Now that everything is organized that process can begin whereas before the data was in complete disarray with no hope of progress in the area of analysis. Now that winter is here it's a good time to sit back and thoroughly develop a sharp approach aimed at discovery. There's a lot more to this than folks may think. It may be time to begin a new topic just on this subject.  

Edited December 12, 2016 by hiflier

[ShadowBorn]

Quote

Going full circle in a sense from where I started on the forums with the Urban Bigfoot thread, what I am interested in discussing is all the variety of adaptions that allow a 8 foot tall 500 pound plus creature to exist on this and other continents. Why does the sasquatch continue to survive despite human invasion of their territory and food resources. Also what will be the future of such a creature given the possibility of global climate changes and subsequent annual rainfall for various regions. Will Jevning suggest on his research podcast that the number of creatures seems to have increased significantly since the 1950s, is that true? What do you think is the current health of the specie and its chances for long term survival.

I can only use one word and that is " Stealth". They have the advantage on that. Like big Ninja's yea ! that's what they are except they are not assassin's .

[JDL]

I don't understand why people want to believe that squatch are declining at the same time that deer are overpopulating and other major predator species (cougar, wolf, coyote, etc.) are not only rebounding back, but moving into areas where they had once been eradicated.

 

Bigfoot aren't spotted owls, overly specialized and dependent upon a very specific niche habitat.  They are as adaptable as humans based on reports, perhaps more so, and I'll bet that there is not a single member on this forum who has had an actual encounter (interaction, not just a sighting), who believes that they aren't masters of any environment they choose to occupy.

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

One of the most useful skills to have when studying this subject is the ability to effectively analyze the validity of individual reports through both psychological analysis and comparisons to certain trends or patterns that aren't commonly known. No matter how hard a person tries to make their fake report appear legitimate, there's almost always multiple things that can give it away. Likewise, it's possible to tell that a witness is telling the truth even if they exaggerate certain aspects and include "fantastical" things into their report. On an ideal forum, this would be something worth discussing in great depth, but given the large number of fake researchers that fabricate their encounters for attention and try to live a little online fantasy, it's likely not a good idea.

 

On another note, I think it's important that researchers understand that the public data they get from organizations like the BFRO is biased. Although the majority of reports they've made available are legitimate, there's a problem in that they pick which reports to investigate and publish based on their own preconceived notions when they don't really understand the subject. At the same time, they don't make the rest of the reports available. This has led to researchers getting a limited view of what's really happening. If any researcher is serious about making progress, they should consider looking into reports outside the public databases of organizations such as the BFRO, as it may lead to new insight that would be very difficult to get from biased sets of data.

[JDL]

More than once I've heard that the BFRO suppresses accounts involving aggressive behavior by bigfoot.

[Guest Waggles]

Coyotes adapt to city life. There are lots of reports of BF in towns surrounded by forest, it's just we don't hear about them. It goes to dispatch and gets canned. I've heard of one in Ohio, following a herd of feet late night. Looked at the exact locations on Google earth totally surrounded by forest with a river close by. Remember, Squatchers is sighted thousands of times a year.

[hiflier]

A herd of FEET??! I mean, getting that 25th post is big and all but..........

 

@ OS, then what avenues would you specifically suggest?

Edited December 13, 2016 by hiflier

[Guest Waggles]

Gremlins in the phone...wcis?

[hiflier]

Hey, just teasing. Welcome to the next tier. See you around the joint  

 

Back on topic, adaptability and survival requires maneuvering in a way that includes some overrides regarding fear of new environments which in turn requires a sharper awareness when in unknown territory. A couple of things might occur. One is getting caught out in the open because something is unfamiliar with new surroundings so don't where the points of exposure are. Another is hunger under the same dynamic- don't know where the food is or the safe routes to water.

 

This is why I harp on knowing the history of a region concerning upheavals due to natural or man made causes that get animals on the move. Sightings may be or benign reasons but I think if one can get data on natural or man made disturbances then there may be a chance to predict a higher chance for a sighting. I initiated a thread on wildfires after the large events in Washington a little over a year ago.

 

It would be interesting to round up the reports if any that have occurred in the year since those fires. Or, conversely, in the last year after a timber harvest operation was started in a particular region. It is too difficult to gather that kind of data for say the last century but the last 25 years of logging, fires, floods, and droughts might be interesting to look at. I think that kind of information should be part of the data for a given area. Those kinds of data might even upset or outweigh things like moon phase because of the immediate nature of such events. 

Edited December 13, 2016 by hiflier

[Mendoza]

6 hours ago, JDL said:

I don't understand why people want to believe that squatch are declining at the same time that deer are overpopulating and other major predator species (cougar, wolf, coyote, etc.) are not only rebounding back, but moving into areas where they had once been eradicated.

 

Bigfoot aren't spotted owls, overly specialized and dependent upon a very specific niche habitat.  They are as adaptable as humans based on reports, perhaps more so, and I'll bet that there is not a single member on this forum who has had an actual encounter (interaction, not just a sighting), who believes that they aren't masters of any environment they choose to occupy.

 

Adaptability is not the only consideration.  Genetics and life cycle play just as much a role in a species' survival.

 

In the domain of genetics and life cycle, there is very likely a big difference between Bigfoot and the wolf, coyote, etc.  The canines and felines are generally midway along the r/K-strategy continuum.  They produce litters that number in the single digits and dedicate a year or two of direct parental involvement before their young are old enough to either fend for themselves or interact as an adult in the social group.  Other characteristics they display that place them in this part of the spectrum are mid-range body size, gestation time, and life span.

 

In contrast, if Bigfoot is a hominoid, then it probably lies with the other hominoids at the very extreme of K-strategists.  Extreme K-strategists produce one offspring at a time and dedicate up to a decade or more of parental involvement.  Other characteristics of organisms at this end of the spectrum are large body size, long gestation time, and relatively long life expectancy.  All of these characteristics are in substantial agreement with the vast majority of Bigfoot sighting reports.

 

K-strategists are most susceptible of all to the types of environmental pressures we are looking at.  They require stable environments and their populations tend to be close to the carrying capacity of their habitat.  A loss of range inevitably corresponds to some degree of population decline.  Additionally, K-specialists are the last to rebound and recolonize areas of prior habitat loss that have recovered.

[guyzonthropus]

Rather than compare them to the coyotes living in closer proximity to people, in terms of their versatility at resource acquisition, BF's might  be better likened to giant raccoons...mask or no...

 

Also, there is considerable fossil evidence of a diverse number of primates developing in Europe throughout the age of mammals...I'm not so certain I'd rely on Wikipedia for confirmation of such...I went with a more reliable source when  first learned of these fossil records....yup..saw it on TV....