Sasquatch: Never Was, Is Extinct, Or Still Out There?

[Rockape]

If they do exists they border on extinction.

10 hours ago, hiflier said:

Actually got the idea for this thread from a post Natfoot did in the "Chatroom".

 

Where?

[MIB]

1 hour ago, hiflier said:

Like to hear one m'self someday.

 

It's kind of cool.  

 

I've heard a total of 4 now.   Oh, I was mistaken, the others were all in 2011, not 2012.   2 were in late August less than a minute apart.  1 was in mid September a couple hundred miles north.     I've also recorded one knock I'm fairly confident of.  That was November 2015.    That's a lot of years, a lot of time in the woods.   Who knows how many I've overlooked or  mistakenly written off as something mundane?

[TritonTr196]

Oh, they definitely exist in the present. 

[Twist]

9 hours ago, Pdub said:

This question is the conundrum wrapped inside an enigma for me. So much evidence (PGF is the biggest) seems to point to continued existence but then...no body, no bones.  The toughest thing for me to get past is lack of observed environmental impact. Groups of 600-1000 lb animals should be leaving much more observable traces. 

 

To answer Hifliers OP, I say exist but echo Huntster near extinction or they are minimally able to support a population. 

 

Agreed.   Exists but very few of them.

[NCBFr]

I am not sure how close they are to extinction.   First, large predators are never plentiful.  I know BF is suffering from habitat encroachment.  However, they are benefiting from an explosion in food supply.  

 

 

[MindSquatch]

They exist! Higher population of them then what most believe there is, much higher.

[norseman]

3 hours ago, NCBFr said:

I am not sure how close they are to extinction.   First, large predators are never plentiful.  I know BF is suffering from habitat encroachment.  However, they are benefiting from an explosion in food supply.  

 

 

 

But you have to wonder what happened to their population around 1900? Look at this map I found of Grizzly bears.

[MIB]

Size, taken alone, is not a good predictor of population.    What constitutes "normal" for a species depends on its habits.    If size were the only predictor, the numbers would be reversed for traditional bison herd numbers vs traditional wolverine numbers, just as an example.  

 

Interesting graph above.   Typically the number of "eaters" generally follows the trend of the "eat-ees", but lags behind.   That's true for plants, herbivores that eat them, and predators that in turn eat those.   There's generally no steady state, only punctuated "die-offs" and population explosions.  

 

There are people who believe the number of bigfoots is increasing, maybe rapidly.   Extrapolating from the ungulate population graph above, that's exactly what a biologist would expect.

 

Hmmm.

 

At the same time, I do not think the sasquatch population has ever been "large" or else, regardless of how they live, we would have clearly identified fossils / remains.   I suspect a sparse population, small groups traveling long distances, meeting seasonally at historical locations, then scattering.   There are people who happen to be in the right place and seem to have enough activity to suggest many sasquatches if that activity were the norm every where, but it is not.   That's one of the reasons many people search and never find anything.

 

MIB

[norseman]

18 minutes ago, MIB said:

Size, taken alone, is not a good predictor of population.    What constitutes "normal" for a species depends on its habits.    If size were the only predictor, the numbers would be reversed for traditional bison herd numbers vs traditional wolverine numbers, just as an example.  

 

Interesting graph above.   Typically the number of "eaters" generally follows the trend of the "eat-ees", but lags behind.   That's true for plants, herbivores that eat them, and predators that in turn eat those.   There's generally no steady state, only punctuated "die-offs" and population explosions.  

 

There are people who believe the number of bigfoots is increasing, maybe rapidly.   Extrapolating from the ungulate population graph above, that's exactly what a biologist would expect.

 

Hmmm.

 

At the same time, I do not think the sasquatch population has ever been "large" or else, regardless of how they live, we would have clearly identified fossils / remains.   I suspect a sparse population, small groups traveling long distances, meeting seasonally at historical locations, then scattering.   There are people who happen to be in the right place and seem to have enough activity to suggest many sasquatches if that activity were the norm every where, but it is not.   That's one of the reasons many people search and never find anything.

 

MIB

 

Yes, but it takes much much longer for predator numbers to rebound than ungulates. For example? Grizzly bear numbers are increasing..... but not at the rate of ungulates.

 

And something else the graph doesnt show? Is that with the reintroduction of Wolves into many areas? Ungulate numbers again are crashing. Deer, Elk and Moose across the board. Woodland Caribou are now officially extinct in the Selkirks because of it. And its also adversely affected Cougar and Bear populations too from competition.

 

How Bigfoot plays into all of this is unknown. But if he is regularly hunting ungulates? He is going to notice that Wolves have buzz sawed through many herds in the last decade.

[MindSquatch]

The bigfoot's diet is much more vast then other wildlife out there. Their hunting abilities in the ways they hunt is incredibly different than other wildlife. So many variables with the bigfoot's on how they managed to survive and keep out of sight right in front of people's nose's. The grizzlies didn't stand a chance with humans and their guns. Bigfoot's on the other hand, were more like their entertainment to them. They will be here long after humans are gone. 

[BobbyO]

Still out there, no real danger of extinction. Just way, way above human beings in their own domain.

[MagniAesir]

Never was is my belief, except that I cannot belive that Bob Gimlin is a liar or fool, 

So I would settle for extinct in the last 50 years

[NCBFr]

8 hours ago, norseman said:

 

But you have to wonder what happened to their population around 1900? Look at this map I found of Grizzly bears.

 

You have to think the western BFs had to come to grips with their new reality in that time frame.  I read that their eastern cousins came to that conclusion 100 years earlier after seeing the results of the Revolutionary wars.

 

7 hours ago, MIB said:

Size, taken alone, is not a good predictor of population.   

 

MIB

 

Tell that to your local ant population and the very dead Mastodons.   Just an engineer, but I bet   a with a few hours of effort I could create a graph with a really nice correlation between size and population.

 

6 hours ago, BobbyO said:

Still out there, no real danger of extinction. Just way, way above human beings in their own domain.

 

Agreed completely.

[JKH]

More common than many think, apparently thriving, sometimes in close proximity to humans.

[TritonTr196]

I'm thinking as few as 1,500 period anywhere. They simple can't multiply in large numbers so that is one thing that keeps the population down. I don't subscribe to the unsubstantiated claims by people over social media and public reports by some places. From what I've seen they mostly live in vast national and state parks. There are some that lives around people that live way out in the boonies sure, but not in suburban areas. The suburban Bigfoot is all good for a few likes on facebook, but so far no evidence of them being that close other than hearsay. And if they were, it would be all over the news already with videos. The government has no way of keeping anything like that a secret now days. But they don't live in everyone's backyard as current word salad states. They might migrate in certain areas like some of the upper western states and into Canada. And that can really mess up population reports. People in one county will see one or two passing through their woods, and then others will see the same one or two in the next county and so on. And then when they migrate back to their original spots, they are liable to be seen again in the same areas and counted as even more Bigfoot when it's the same ones passing through different times of the year when migrating in those really cold states. Population reports are basically useless. However, down south, they don't migrate at all. There is simply no reason to migrate down here and we've never seen any evidence that they do migrate in the southern states. Plenty of food, vegetable or meat, all year long regardless of season. Just not cold enough to migrate. Here they stay in the same areas all year long. The deer and other animals doesn't migrate here so why would Bigfoot. They are all over the place, but not a lot of them is all over the place.