southernyahoo Posted March 26, 2017 Posted March 26, 2017 On 3/24/2017 at 1:26 PM, norseman said: What do you think an average adult would weigh? And how many in a family group? You could probably guess at Patty's weight. Use that as an average for adults and then figure in some of a family group as being younger and less heavy. Take the total number of square miles encompassing suitable habitat within a region, divide it by 100 and then multiply by 5 and you might be close to the number of sasquatch I would guess there are. It's still a WAG though.
hiflier Posted March 26, 2017 Posted March 26, 2017 WAG or not here goes: Olympic National Park- 1,442 sq. mi. gives around 70 for a Sasquatch number. The entire Olympic Peninsula at 3,600 sq. mi. results in a figure of 180 creatures.
BigTreeWalker Posted March 26, 2017 Posted March 26, 2017 2 hours ago, norseman said: Consistent evidence? I do. I've had a cougar kill with in 50 yards of my house, and always find deer bones on the ranch. I've walked into a angry hornets cloud because a bear had been ripping the log apart minutes before. We treed cats with hounds in winter and bears in fall. I can call bears in with a mouth call. I see tracks all of the time. Skunk cabbage ripped out, huckleberry bushes eaten, stumps torn asunder, rocks flipped...plus tons and tons of scat. I have no problem pointing to the harvest evidence from Bears or Cougars. And in your unique case your trying to seperate out the mundane from the extraordinary evidence. That's all fine and dandy. But who else in the country is sending you bones that have giant concave tooth marks chipped out? If we have a large coast to coast population of these things? The landscape should be littered with these bones your finding? Right? Especially in areas void of bears or cougars it should be a no brainer..... The Finding Bigfoot crew should be tripping over these bones with each outing in each state if they truly are in "squatchy" areas.....your garage should be full of deer bones people have sent you. And Im sticking with deer as a rule of thumb because it's by far and away the most populated ungulate in the US mainland. Most states do not have Elk or Moose or Caribou. Norse, can you say for sure that all those cougar kills are what they seem to be? And all the stumps are torn apart by bears? Do you find tracks identifying the animals at every location you find? Because I sure don't. One thing I have found in my studies is that cougar feeding sites and bigfoot feeding sites are very similar. More similar than any of the other animals.The point I was trying to make, at least in the area where we are going, is that there is enough evidence of foraging to include bigfoot. That IS what you were originally getting at. There are lots of smaller animals that no-one would even notice if they were being fed on. I know we don't find all the evidence of foraging that a cougar or a bear leave. The bones aren't piled all in one place (although I've heard it reported that such places have been found) and the ripped stumps are spread out over miles of territory. I've said it before, if bigfoot exists and has been living in the ecosystem for thousands of years then that same ecosystem would be able to sustain what you have decided has to be mass devastation just to stay fed. Their dietary requirements would not have changed in recent years. Other people have found similar evidence on bones as we have. I've contacted some. Sometimes I get a response, other times I'm still waiting. 1 hour ago, southernyahoo said: You could probably guess at Patty's weight. Use that as an average for adults and then figure in some of a family group as being younger and less heavy. Take the total number of square miles encompassing suitable habitat within a region, divide it by 100 and then multiply by 5 and you might be close to the number of sasquatch I would guess there are. It's still a WAG though. It may be a WAG but I think it's a reasonable one. Very similar to what I've calculated as well. For those that have a problem with those numbers, divide it by 200 instead. You still get some interesting numbers. Another thing I thought I would mention is that no, we are not tripping over bones everywhere. We walk through the forest spread out like a search and rescue team to see what we can find. Sometimes it works, most of the time we find very little. And no Finding Bigfoot wouldn't. We've never found any bones in the dark. That's a daylight process.
hiflier Posted March 26, 2017 Posted March 26, 2017 Looking at southernyahoo's "equation" and the results I came up with? Average BF area is one for every two hundred square miles. Don't know how to factor for a family unit. Bears apparently only need 15-30% of that area so multiply 70 or 180 by 3-6 bears. So competition may average 200 to 400 per 70 Sasquatch for the Olympic Park or around 500 to 1,000 for 180 Sasquatch just for the Olympic Peninsula. It was difficult to find a bear population figure for the Olympic Peninsula alone. In fact I never found the number of bears there in all my digging. Someone else may know where to look.
SWWASAS Posted March 26, 2017 BFF Patron Posted March 26, 2017 My experience may not be typical but it sort of points to the relative numbers of BF related to other known to science creatures in my research area in 10 years of time in the field. Mind you this was an active BF area in SW Washington. An area without BF may have more cougars or other predators as a result. Total number of face to face BF encounters = 3 if you accept a growl or chest beating as 2 of the encounters. Total number of face to face cougar encounters = one. Total number of black bear encounters = 2. Nearly an equal number of foot print finds between bear and BF and cougar. One wolf track. No porcupines or wolverines seen nor tracks of them. Fresh deer and / or elk tracks found nearly every time out. This is a big guess but based on sighting and footprint finds, I would guess in my research area when it was active there were nearly an equal number of cougar and BF. Both BF and cougar are reclusive and don't want to be seen. Neither are seen as often as bear. Wolves have just moved into the area and that number is probably not representative of anything. Cougar and BF may have a symbiotic relationship by feeding on remains of each others kills. Perhaps BF takes them away? An apex predator that also scavenges in certain circumstances would also be an apex scavenger. BTW has mentioned a there may be a relationship between cougar and BF kills.
Rockape Posted March 26, 2017 Posted March 26, 2017 My Bigfoot "Honey Hole" is here at the BFF where I get all the news and information on happenings in the BFworld. That's why I contribute to the Bigfoot Forum Fund drive, and you should too. Contribute here http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?/announcement/45-help-the-bigfoot-forums-with-our-fund-drive/ Questions asked and answered here... Play trivia, win a donation...
hiflier Posted March 26, 2017 Posted March 26, 2017 Hi SWWASAS. Two things after reading your post. They stem from how wild animals respond to Humans: For the most part they run away or otherwise vacate an area. This is GENERALLY true although some circumstances will result in something other than that general response to our presence. So, that said one response by animals including BF is to disappear somehow when we come onto the scene. The second may or may not be thought of as relevant. And that is that Sasquatch, like us, is also bipedal. So would the animal reaction to them be the same as the animal response to Humans? In other words, beyond more familiarity with Sasquatch, would animals in the wild respond to a BF's presence in the same manner as they respond to Humans? If so then it is quite reasonable to say that a BF would have a place to themselves if animals scatter they same way in which they do when we walk onto the scene. If that's the case then what does it do for say a population of bears in a given locale. Do you think they wouldn't care one way or another or would they leave. Have you or anyone else noticed any differences in that regard in an area you frequent? Is it even worth considering as a clue to whether or not there is a Sasquatch presence where and when you go to your respective research areas?
norseman Posted March 26, 2017 Admin Posted March 26, 2017 30,000 black bear in Washington state with well over half of them living on the west side I would guess. The Quinalt Indians claim SE Alaska like densities on there reservation.
hiflier Posted March 26, 2017 Posted March 26, 2017 West side of what? I-5? Mount St Helens, Adams? West of the Southern Cascades in General? West of the peaks in the Gifford Pinchot? You might be talking about somewhere around 20,000 bears?
hiflier Posted March 27, 2017 Posted March 27, 2017 Thanks, That would make more sense for the number of bears.
SWWASAS Posted March 27, 2017 BFF Patron Posted March 27, 2017 22 hours ago, hiflier said: Hi SWWASAS. Two things after reading your post. They stem from how wild animals respond to Humans: For the most part they run away or otherwise vacate an area. This is GENERALLY true although some circumstances will result in something other than that general response to our presence. So, that said one response by animals including BF is to disappear somehow when we come onto the scene. The second may or may not be thought of as relevant. And that is that Sasquatch, like us, is also bipedal. So would the animal reaction to them be the same as the animal response to Humans? In other words, beyond more familiarity with Sasquatch, would animals in the wild respond to a BF's presence in the same manner as they respond to Humans? If so then it is quite reasonable to say that a BF would have a place to themselves if animals scatter they same way in which they do when we walk onto the scene. If that's the case then what does it do for say a population of bears in a given locale. Do you think they wouldn't care one way or another or would they leave. Have you or anyone else noticed any differences in that regard in an area you frequent? Is it even worth considering as a clue to whether or not there is a Sasquatch presence where and when you go to your respective research areas? Of course with my years of BF field work, I had way more presence in the woods than before that. . I am not a hunter so previous to BF research, my woods exposure was a hike 3 or 4 times a year. Normally with companions. Solo hiking is very different. I have noticed over time, deer sometimes react strangely. If you blunder into a deer at close range they bolt, frantically thrashing through underbrush to get away. That would be expected. Other times if you come on deer quietly, they will look up from grazing, stare and smell you, then go back to eating. I see some sort of threat assessment on their part, and determine that in my case I was not a threat, so I often can continue on my way, with them either not moving or slowly moving away eating as they go. Somehow I think if I was a hairy naked and 8 foot tall, they would not hang around. In an active BF area, I imagine they have to quickly assess if the biped they are seeing is human or BF to have any chance to get away. Of my two bear encounters, one was at a very close range when we came around the corner, snout to face at about 20 feet on a trail, the bear bolted and went down a 45 degree embankment to get away. It was reassuring that it was as afraid of me as I was of it. The other ambled off after rummaging around my camp in the night. The cougar was confrontational and jumped into the middle of the logging road in front of me from a cliff face beside the road. Stared at me for about 10 or 15 seconds then just turned tail to me and ambled off down the road in the direction I had been traveling. It did not even run. It had chased two deer across the road in front of me. I had the feeling it was evaluating my size and deciding if it wanted to mess with me or continue after the deer. It chose the deer. It did not seem to be the least bit afraid of me. It never even looked back in the 100 yards or so it was still in sight before it went over the embankment in the direction the deer went. What scared me if that if could have knocked me off the mountain bike I was riding if I had not stopped to take a breather right before I got below it. In an active BF area, there has to be an interesting interaction of the larger species. Bear, BF, cougar and humans. The scary thing to me is that most humans have no idea BF is there in the mix. And some do not seem to understand the danger from cougars. I found a fresh large cougar track on a trail near the Oregon Coast. It seemed to be following the trail. I encountered a small young female hiker headed the other way, and warned her about the cougar. She acted like I was nuts to be concerned. My concern was for her. She was small and unarmed. Is that the reason the Forest Service does not want to admit BF is there? Most people have seen a King Cong movie. King Cong might make the woods a really scary place. The Forest Service wants us to imagine the woods with Thumper and Bambi.
hiflier Posted March 27, 2017 Posted March 27, 2017 24 minutes ago, SWWASAS said: The Forest Service wants us to imagine the woods with Thumper and Bambi. Yep, and we understand the reasoning there. And I still think they know about BF. Maybe whatever experiences they have had has shown them there is nothing to fear there either. Hard to think that if there was then measures would not have been taken. Although closing off sections of a forest may be viewed as the only concession that they will make in order to not say anything. Finding physical remains would be such a major accomplishment. Getting closer here in Maine to getting out there. Day trips are fine but a couple of days and nights in an area is better. Can't wait to get going again. I'm completely self contained in all aspects for the hunt. Been studying the databases and pinpointing locations with their dates as well as working out as much movement year to year as reports will allow. Ideally some fair weather even with temps at night in the 30's would be fine. Clear, wet ground that has had a light dusting of snow would be perfect. April therefore can be a fine month to be out there.
SWWASAS Posted March 27, 2017 BFF Patron Posted March 27, 2017 You have to remember that this is the same government that does not want a person dying of cancer to try some medicine used successfully in Europe, because it has yet to be approved by the FDA. . Same government that did nuclear testing in Nevada and put me in the fallout pattern when I was a kid in Eastern Oregon, and lined up soldiers during the tests to see what it did to them, Same government, that ran a naval ship off the coast of San Francisco during WWII spewing out germs , to see what percentage of the San Fransico citizens got sick. The list of things like this is long. The US Government thinks nothing of risking citizen lives if it serves some purpose thought worth it by the government. Humans in danger in the woods is the least of their worry. 1
hiflier Posted March 27, 2017 Posted March 27, 2017 They don't worry if you die but they worry if you survive using an unsanctioned method? Hardly makes sense I think perhaps they don't worry if you die slowly. Zat sound 'bout right?
Recommended Posts