Jump to content

Estimating Sasquatch Population


Explorer
 Share

Recommended Posts

36 minutes ago, Huntster said:

 

We all have the same estimating tools. That really boils down to report densities. In the case of comparing those report densities to known black bear densities, the ratio estimate can obviously vary. Explorers table above gives three options: 1/10, 1/100, and 1/1000. My own preferred ratio to black bears for the past 20 years has been 1/200, and Dr. Meldrum's sasquatch population density estimate for Idaho (and I don't now what he bases that on) is near mine (125). Yes, all this is speculative, but the sasquatch report densities are remarkably identical to black bear range and densities. The most likely reasons are:

 

1) Sasquatch sightings are actually black bear sightings, or

2) Sasquatches and black bears share habitats.

 

Can you suggest other options?

 

I'll ask first how many reports go unreported that can skew those numbers potentially?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sésquac
BFF Donor
7 minutes ago, zeebob889 said:

 

I'll ask first how many reports go unreported that can skew those numbers potentially?

 

I'd answer that sasquatch reports go unreported as yet another ratio of as often as black bear sightings going unreported,and I have a fresh example to illustrate that point.

 

Last Friday, April 8th, I headed to Anchorage after the morning rush (if you can call this "rush hour, which Alaskans do).........about 11 am. As I approached the Ft. Richardson exit on the Glenn Highway I saw what I thought was a big piece of black Visqueen on the bottom if the moose fence, which is there to keep moose off the highway. I kept my eye in it as I cruised forward on cruise control. Sure enough, a very large black bar stood up and slowly turned and gave me a great profile view. It was almost comical. He was obviously trying to get under the fence to get on post, and he was still pretty slow and groggy from his winter sleep. He was at a place where the fence had turned away from the highway toward the Ft. Rich guard shack. He had a bit if woodland cover from the eyes of more unattentive motorists, and he was unobservable by the MPs at the gate.

 

Now, Anchorage is well known worldwide by biologists as the big city that is full of bears, just as Seattle should be known as the big city full of sasquatches, but I was a bit surprised by the sighting. First, this bear looked downright fat......like a fall bear, not a spring bear. Secondly, this is the earliest date I've seen a black bear out and about in this region, and I'm a bear baiter. Granted, this is a calendar date observance, not based on the moon cycle, but the earliest I)ve ever had a bear hit my bait since the mid-1980's was May 4th. Even much further south In late March most black bears ate still in dens, except big bors like the one I saw Friday.

 

Did I report this sighting to anybody? Nope. But I bet I know an ADFG biologist and an Army biologist who would have lived me to do that. I'm busy with my springtime life, including discussion with you. I'd like to go on a brown bear hunt this spring. Again, even then, wu

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, zeebob889 said:

 

Why does it  have to be about dislike. I'm neither a fan or disparager. Simply pointing out the obvious, we have no baseline specimen, thus noone knows anything more than anyone else. It's all conjecture until that point. Yes, he's a primatologist, a mormon belief influenced primatologist (or so its been suggested elsewhere online). I would take his thoughts over Moneymaker's who is clearly in it for the money, but he like anyone else doing this has yet to earn the pedestal.


What does holding a “baseline” specimen have to do with population predictions? Look at how many species we think are extinct are not actually extinct.

 

https://happymag.tv/10-animals-we-thought-were-extinct-but-actually-arent/


Yes, it’s all conjecture…… even with known animals.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sésquac
BFF Donor

?......whoops! Fat fingers suck!

 

......will I report any bears I see during my hunt? Nope. The only bear I'll report is the bear I harvest, and I'm a very picky hunter. I'm not likely to shoot a bear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sésquac
BFF Donor

Just because I've run across this before when reading Alaska DFG manage reports, I thought I'd mention it again:

 

https://seafwa.org/sites/default/files/journal-articles/BOWMAN-614-621.pdf

 

Quote

.......Expansion of the black bear (Ursus americanus) population outside White River National Wildlife Refuge, Arkansas, has caused local citizens to request reduction of the population. An estimate of black bear population size is necessary before any management recommendations can be made. We used 2 census methods to estimate population size. Hunter surveys of bear sightings during the 2-day firearm deer hunt were used in 1994 to estimate population size with a Petersen-Lincoln estimator. The survey yielded a population estimate of 213 bears (95% CI = 129-297). We used cameras triggered by infrared monitors to photograph bears visiting bait sites over a 7-day period during August 1995. Infrared monitors recorded 176 events, resulting in 87 photographs of 23 different bears. We used 2 separate models to calculate population sizes using data from cameras..........

 

Sightings reports are a regular, valid, and scientifically accepted method of data accumulation. In the case above, biologists actively sought sighting data from a specific group of people. This is unfortunately not the case with sasquatch report databases. Blind surveys seeking sighting reports from such outdoorsmen as hunters, timber cruisers, loggers, rangers, rural LEOs, backpackers, etc might provide many more reports than what we have now.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Engaged Member
BFF Donor
19 hours ago, zeebob889 said:

 

Why does it  have to be about dislike. I'm neither a fan or disparager. Simply pointing out the obvious, we have no baseline specimen, thus noone knows anything more than anyone else. It's all conjecture until that point. Yes, he's a primatologist, a mormon belief influenced primatologist (or so its been suggested elsewhere online). I would take his thoughts over Moneymaker's who is clearly in it for the money, but he like anyone else doing this has yet to earn the pedestal.

Good answer. I am not a fan. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moderator
1 hour ago, Patterson-Gimlin said:

Good answer. I am not a fan. 

 

For me yes and no.  There are certain aspects where I consider him a .. maybe THE .. world class expert.   Others .. I don't think he's any more qualified to comment than anyone else who does field research.   He earned his PhD in a specialized field and it does not imply general expertise in all things.   When it comes to feet .. for instance when it comes to looking at tracks to see if they suggest a living foot vs a hoaxer's prosthetic whatchmacallit .. yeah, Meldrum is absolutely as qualified to comment as any person can be.   That is in HIS "wheelhouse."   So far as population dynamics .. not so much.  

 

What it means is we have to keep an eye on our experts to be sure they are only expertizing in their field of expertise and question them when they step beyond its boundaries.    It doesn't mean they are necessarily wrong, it means we should not grant their opinion the same weight on a topic outside their field as we would one within their field.       

 

MIB

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Passionate Member
BFF Donor
2 hours ago, MIB said:

 

For me yes and no.  There are certain aspects where I consider him a .. maybe THE .. world class expert.   Others .. I don't think he's any more qualified to comment than anyone else who does field research.   He earned his PhD in a specialized field and it does not imply general expertise in all things.   When it comes to feet .. for instance when it comes to looking at tracks to see if they suggest a living foot vs a hoaxer's prosthetic whatchmacallit .. yeah, Meldrum is absolutely as qualified to comment as any person can be.   That is in HIS "wheelhouse."   So far as population dynamics .. not so much.  

 

What it means is we have to keep an eye on our experts to be sure they are only expertizing in their field of expertise and question them when they step beyond its boundaries.    It doesn't mean they are necessarily wrong, it means we should not grant their opinion the same weight on a topic outside their field as we would one within their field.       

 

MIB

This is brilliantly said, someone who is an expert in one specific scientific field does not make them an expert across all scientific fields, and this applies to areas that are non-scientifically focused as well. And I love the term 'expertizing', it is awesome. Thanks, @MIB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, MIB said:

 

For me yes and no.  There are certain aspects where I consider him a .. maybe THE .. world class expert.   Others .. I don't think he's any more qualified to comment than anyone else who does field research.   He earned his PhD in a specialized field and it does not imply general expertise in all things.   When it comes to feet .. for instance when it comes to looking at tracks to see if they suggest a living foot vs a hoaxer's prosthetic whatchmacallit .. yeah, Meldrum is absolutely as qualified to comment as any person can be.   That is in HIS "wheelhouse."   So far as population dynamics .. not so much.  

 

What it means is we have to keep an eye on our experts to be sure they are only expertizing in their field of expertise and question them when they step beyond its boundaries.    It doesn't mean they are necessarily wrong, it means we should not grant their opinion the same weight on a topic outside their field as we would one within their field.       

 

MIB


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Meldrum


His PHD is in Biological Anthropology.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_anthropology

 

I think it’s safe to say Dr. Meldrum has studied Hominoid reproduction and distribution in the field of Biological Anthropology. And probably is much more qualified than a layman to talk about the numbers of Bigfeet in North America. Or let’s just say he is as qualified as most scientists to talk about the subject, except most scientists won’t talk about the subject……

 

Can we just shoot one now?

 

 

 

 

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sésquac
BFF Donor
7 hours ago, norseman said:

........Can we just shoot one now?

 

:lol:

 

I hope you get a shot, and I hope that if you're successful, The Haters and your own conscience don't destroy you afterwards.

 

Ever notice that word: "con-science"? Do you think that is a coincidence?..............

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/14/2022 at 6:32 PM, Huntster said:

Just because I've run across this before when reading Alaska DFG manage reports, I thought I'd mention it again:

 

https://seafwa.org/sites/default/files/journal-articles/BOWMAN-614-621.pdf

 

 

Sightings reports are a regular, valid, and scientifically accepted method of data accumulation. In the case above, biologists actively sought sighting data from a specific group of people. This is unfortunately not the case with sasquatch report databases. Blind surveys seeking sighting reports from such outdoorsmen as hunters, timber cruisers, loggers, rangers, rural LEOs, backpackers, etc might provide many more reports than what we have now.

 

of those reported, its not nessicarily a valid reflection. Never mind anecdotal sightings being highly fallible.

On 4/15/2022 at 11:20 AM, MIB said:

 

For me yes and no.  There are certain aspects where I consider him a .. maybe THE .. world class expert.   Others .. I don't think he's any more qualified to comment than anyone else who does field research.   He earned his PhD in a specialized field and it does not imply general expertise in all things.   When it comes to feet .. for instance when it comes to looking at tracks to see if they suggest a living foot vs a hoaxer's prosthetic whatchmacallit .. yeah, Meldrum is absolutely as qualified to comment as any person can be.   That is in HIS "wheelhouse."   So far as population dynamics .. not so much.  

 

What it means is we have to keep an eye on our experts to be sure they are only expertizing in their field of expertise and question them when they step beyond its boundaries.    It doesn't mean they are necessarily wrong, it means we should not grant their opinion the same weight on a topic outside their field as we would one within their field.       

 

MIB

 

which he has let religiosity influence, tainting any otherwise valid cred. Sorry, no sale. Hes a mere mortal looking like the rest of us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sésquac
BFF Donor
2 hours ago, zeebob889 said:

of those reported, its not nessicarily a valid reflection. Never mind anecdotal sightings being highly fallible.........

 

The current report databases are valid as we currently have access to, they will continue to be as valid as we will have until the science industry gets with the program, and that will not occur until a motorist or poacher delivers them a carcass, and that will not occur as long as government continues suppressing discovery. Sorry, but I'm pretty sure that's just the way it is. So estimating sasquatch range based upon report densities continues to match known black bear range with remarkable uniformity. Sasquatch report densities also match black bear densities increasing with precipitation. These facts, in accordance with Glickman's theory on human population densities and its relation to sasquatch reports, does not fit with manufactured reports. It does indicate that black bear misidentifications occur, but if sasquatches actually exist, that means that sasquatch sightings are also sometimes mistaken for black bears. 

 

The bottom line is that, if you accept that sasquatches exist, their densities and range are clearly mirrored by black bear densities and range. The ratio of sasquatches to black bears is fairly wide open. I've used the ratio of one sasquatch to 200 bears as a general rule, but I admit that is not scientific.......but, then, little about the phenomenon is scientific, because science as an industry refuses to participate. So 200/1? 100/1? 500/1? What do you think?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Steering Committee
BFF Donor
On 4/14/2022 at 1:11 PM, zeebob889 said:

 

Why does it  have to be about dislike. I'm neither a fan or disparager.

 

My Spidey senses were tingling. He's obviously a disparager, and he doth protest too much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, gigantor said:

zeebob889 is really vinchyfoot, I hate trolls.

 

 

 


<polite clapping>
 

Thank you for keeping our forum safe from trolls Gigantor!

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...