Poll: Do You Think BF has a Viable Population?

[MIB]

Fossils ... no.   Remember, temperate rain forest with acidic soils stack the odds against preservation of fossils considerably.   

 

If you push forward the idea that they live only in the Pac NW, not the midwest, not the desert SW, etc,  you're also, realize it or not, pushing forward the idea they live only where fossils are least likely to be preserved.   You can't have it both ways.

 

MIB

Edited February 23, 2017 by MIB

[norseman]

Presumably Sasquatch would have entered North America through the Berengia land bridge. Maybe a lot of this is underwater now. But we have many fossils that survive from that time.

 

http://www.beringia.com/exhibits/ice-age-animals

 

While the volcanic soil of the PNW is not the best place for fossilization? Arctic permafrost is...... in fact certain societies have actually eaten mammoth steaks at yearly banquets. 

 

And Im not pushing forward the idea they only live in the PNW. But reject the idea that they are a healthy breeding population in 49 states. 

[MIB]

Agreed, somewhat, cautiously.    There seem to be a lot of assumptions made that should be questioned.   If they traveled the coastal strip which is now underwater, or if they traveled on the ice over areas now submerged, how many fossils will there be?   How many human remains have we found underwater off the coast from that time?    How many human remains have we found in north america in permafrost ... omitting deliberate burial there?    What do you think their numbers were relative to mammoths that you mention?  

 

I don't think most states have a stationary breeding population in the sense you're suggesting.  It's not relevant.   The numbers might not represent a viable population if stationary and in isolation, but they're not stationary and it's not in isolation.  I think the travel web is such that there is a diffuse but very viable breeding population that overlaps all 49 states with concentrations in many that are indeed viable even in isolation.   

 

MIB

[JDL]

Some believe that Homo Heidelbergensis could be closely related to bigfoot.

[norseman]

On 2/23/2017 at 7:29 AM, MIB said:

Agreed, somewhat, cautiously.    There seem to be a lot of assumptions made that should be questioned.   If they traveled the coastal strip which is now underwater, or if they traveled on the ice over areas now submerged, how many fossils will there be?   How many human remains have we found underwater off the coast from that time?    How many human remains have we found in north america in permafrost ... omitting deliberate burial there?    What do you think their numbers were relative to mammoths that you mention?  

 

I don't think most states have a stationary breeding population in the sense you're suggesting.  It's not relevant.   The numbers might not represent a viable population if stationary and in isolation, but they're not stationary and it's not in isolation.  I think the travel web is such that there is a diffuse but very viable breeding population that overlaps all 49 states with concentrations in many that are indeed viable even in isolation.   

 

MIB

 

So what population number are we talking about for those 49 states?

[MIB]

Good question ...  and all answers are premature.    It really boils down to our assumptions about what they are and how they behave, thus how many it takes to produce the body of evidence we have and the rate at which it continues to grow vs what our assumptions say about how many of that sort could stay mostly hidden most of the time.  

 

MIB

[norseman]

It's estimated there are 300,000 black bears in the US and 600,000 in North America.

 

If the Sasquatch population lives in similar forested areas coast to coast? How much less dense are they the black bear density?

 

10:1? 100:1?

[MIB]

You're asking me to talk out my ... rear.      I'm not going to give you a number because I don't have a basis for confidence in any particular number.   I'm not setting myself up for ridicule based on numbers I don't have any way to defend.    Each of the possible paradigms for what they are leads to a different population size to match the existing body of evidence.   Figure out what they are, then we can start to make better guesses how many there are.   Trying to work it the other way around is too error-prone.

 

MIB

[norseman]

I'm not trying to ridicule you.

 

Im just trying to wrap my head around this poll....no pun intended.

 

The majority of people seem to think they are very numerous and virtually everywhere. That's not my observation as a hunter,rancher,mule packer and long haul truck driver.

 

So if I'm wrong I want to understand why.

 

[scottv]

Would grizzly bears be a better model for bigfoot population density/numbers than black bear due their size (grizzlies)?

[Guest Seatco]

Reckon BF is like a large mouth bass.90% of BF(bass) are in a 10% of the woods(water).Find the 10% they use.

 

Forming a pattern should be easy.

 

Nobody's answer is correct or incorrect on numbers.Ill state 50,000 to kick things off.

Edited February 28, 2017 by Seatco

[norseman]

55 minutes ago, scottv said:

Would grizzly bears be a better model for bigfoot population density/numbers than black bear due their size (grizzlies)?

 

Well That's where I'm at..... I think like the grizzly bear, Sasquatch lives in low numbers in remote, or hard to penetrate pockets in the Lower 48. There are 1800 grizzly bear in the lower 48.

 

But almost 50 people voted that Sasquatch number are steady or growing in a vastly larger range than a grizzly bear. Much more like the range of the black bear. So if that is true which you need bodies to fill space, then Seatco's number of 50,000 would put them at a ratio of 6:1. 6 black bear for every 1 squatch.

[MagniAesir]

I don't believe that they have ever existed 

[scottv]

I think that grizzly bear numbers in the lower 48 are kept artificially low. Right now I can't see why bigfoot in the lower 48, would not be as common as grizzly bears in Canada or Alaska.

[BobbyO]

5 hours ago, norseman said:

I'm not trying to ridicule you.

 

Im just trying to wrap my head around this poll....no pun intended.

 

The majority of people seem to think they are very numerous and virtually everywhere. That's not my observation as a hunter,rancher,mule packer and long haul truck driver.

 

So if I'm wrong I want to understand why.

 

 

Norse you keep saying "49 States" and insinuate that "the majority of people seem to think they are very numerous everywhere."

 

Neither need to be true and without reading back over the 9 pages of this thread, I certainly don't recall the majority saying anything even remotely close to that.

 

There are areas out East that I'd bet my house on having decent population pockets, there are other areas that I'd bet my house on not having a Sasquatch within 200 plus miles, heck I'd even say the same to that one out west.

 

There has never been a lot of reports from where you live don't forget nor within a 100 mile or so radius even though it's great habitat, I have no idea why that is.

 

None of the answers to this poll need anyone to think what you keep insinuating, and most certainly not the majority of people.

 

It's all about Canada and Alaska, these two places blow all reasonable talk of populations out of the water by the habitat combined with little to no people of both.

 

Yet as far as the BFRO database is concerned, Florida has more reports than both combined.

That's 17m acres to 500m acres, yet only 20m to 35m people.

 

Sasquatch doesn't need to be everywhere to be thriving, but yes it needs population pockets and enough of those doubled with the ability to move between them, for breeding purposes.