Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Animal Populations


  • Please log in to reply
8 replies to this topic

#1 SRA Kris

SRA Kris

    Board Member

  • Administrators
  • 1,356 posts
  • LocationWisconsin

Posted 01 October 2014 - 05:10 PM

I found this new article on Yahoo... https://screen.yahoo...-012402643.html

 

the gist is that the overall population of all non-humans on the planet has fallen ~50% since 1970 (which was the baseline).

It lists a bunch of reason for this...but it got me thinking.

 

What would a sasquatch population look like numerically, to account for all of the sightings we see.

How many squatch are there (as an estimate) to support 

1) The sightings

2) The population to support the sightings


SRA Kris
Don't Believe, Know.

#2 jayjeti

jayjeti

    Researcher

  • Registered Users
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,299 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 01 October 2014 - 08:18 PM

What would a sasquatch population look like numerically, to account for all of the sightings we see.

How many squatch are there (as an estimate) to support 

1) The sightings

2) The population to support the sightings

 

 

Last year I read an article claiming there had been around 2,300 reports of sasquatches in North America since 2007, and the article estimated that for every reported encounter 100 go unreported.  I can't attest to the accuracy of those figures or the estimate of likely unreported numbers, but using those numbers points to a good sized population.  

 

Although some of those encounters likely involved the same creature in multiple encounters, multiplying those numbers together of just possible encounters puts it in the six figures range since 2007.  Considering their ability to remain secluded from view I would assume the majority are not ever involved in any encounters.  So, a conservative estimate using those numbers puts their population on into the 6 figure range.  I've seen a lot of estimates that I think greatly low ball their numbers, like 5,000.  



#3 jayjeti

jayjeti

    Researcher

  • Registered Users
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,299 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 02 October 2014 - 02:50 PM

As an additional note I was reading a portion of John Green's book, Sasquatch: The Apes Among Us.   In the final chapter he makes this comment, "The situation of the sasquatch differs considerably from that of the other great apes in at least three ways.  First, there is no shortage of wild sasquatches.  They cover such a tremendous area that there must be many thousands of them, and there is nothing to indicate that their numbers are declining.  On the contrary, their appearance in more and more places where they were not previously known suggests that they are steadily becoming more numerous."  

 

So, in regards to the study that says the population of the world's non-human animals have fallen by 50% since 1970, John Green suggests sasquatch numbers buck that trend and are steadily increasing.

 

As a side note, Mr. Green advocates for the killing of sasquatches for scientific purposes since science will never recognize any species without first studying a type species.  He believes there should be examples of them kept in zoos like other animals.  His view of them are they should not be associated with being some kind of a human species, but are more like our ape cousins.



#4 SRA Kris

SRA Kris

    Board Member

  • Administrators
  • 1,356 posts
  • LocationWisconsin

Posted 02 October 2014 - 05:55 PM

While I'm not a proponent of killing any animal to prove it exists...I can agree with part of Mr. Green's statement., Until a type species is in hand...then the proof of the Sasquatches existence will be undeniable.

 

SO, if the killing of a single sasquatch is required to prove they exist, then I would be for that, but that would be it. BUT I would much rather us find a dead sasquatch then go on a mission to shoot one.

It is like saying suddenly, "Hey, it is open season on left handed people."  It is just not logical or ethical...IMHO.

 

I do not believe they are ape cousins in the same way that he is suggesting...They seem to be far to intelligent to be just a cousin.


SRA Kris
Don't Believe, Know.

#5 Vistasofmontana

Vistasofmontana

    Novice Squatcher

  • Registered Users
  • Pip
  • 5 posts

Posted 08 December 2014 - 08:42 PM

I have trouble with killing even one bigfoot. It worries me because we do not know what the population densities are for bigfoot. What happens if the bigfoot that they shoot, and it happens to be the only breeding male or female in the population area? Do we  unknowingly end up destroying a whole population of bigfoot because of our wanting to know? I personally would much rather have video or photographic evidence.

 

We go down a slippery slope of killing any creature when enough is not known about their populations. I would rather that we not take the chance of possibly killing the only breeding male or female in an area.



#6 SRA Kris

SRA Kris

    Board Member

  • Administrators
  • 1,356 posts
  • LocationWisconsin

Posted 09 December 2014 - 10:18 PM

I have trouble with killing even one bigfoot. It worries me because we do not know what the population densities are for bigfoot. What happens if the bigfoot that they shoot, and it happens to be the only breeding male or female in the population area? Do we  unknowingly end up destroying a whole population of bigfoot because of our wanting to know? I personally would much rather have video or photographic evidence.

 

We go down a slippery slope of killing any creature when enough is not known about their populations. I would rather that we not take the chance of possibly killing the only breeding male or female in an area.

 

I agree...even with my opinion of having a "type specimen" as irrefutable proof.

 Like I said...I'd like to have a dead body from natural causes...this way there are no political ramifications from either culture.


  • Vistasofmontana likes this
SRA Kris
Don't Believe, Know.

#7 jayjeti

jayjeti

    Researcher

  • Registered Users
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,299 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 10 December 2014 - 01:12 AM

If one is killed allowing for a type species and the scientific community recognizes it, I imagine it will quickly be labeled an endangered species and killing one will be outlawed, even though there is no way to know their numbers since they are the most elusive creature on the planet.  A possible second is the Tasmanian Tiger (Thylacine) thought extinct but still has occasional sightings, although its a recognized species.


  • Vistasofmontana likes this

#8 SRA Kris

SRA Kris

    Board Member

  • Administrators
  • 1,356 posts
  • LocationWisconsin

Posted 10 December 2014 - 08:35 AM

It is my opinion that the government does not want the species ever discovered to be TRUE.  Because of the major disruption to many aspects of our economy.

I do not feel that my statement is one anchored in conspiracy but one of deduction.  As I have asked other people the same question I'll pose it here:

 

If you were at a court of law, and presented the evidence obtained in its entirety - including hoaxed material, you would find it impossible to disprove the existence of sasquatch.  We are talking about new clippings, photos, videos, audios, eyewitness accounts, hair and other DNA samplings which are inconclusive or matching no known species, and the list of evidence is still longer.

Proving the species aside, who would be most affected by the protection of a sasquatch?

the logging industry, the Department of natural Resources, National Parks, and others I cannot readily think of would all be influenced heavily by the proof of sasquatch.  If you hobbled the logging industry by creating protected lands that a sasquatch roams in...their wood collecting would slow down, creating a shortage of wood for building.  If your shorting the supply of wood, you drive up the price of wood and economic snowball effect just starts rolling.

Without even considering the logging industry for a moment...say you had proven sasquatch.

Then consider the sightings and your a resort owner.  I feel confident that there would be one of a couple issues generated.

1) your area is known for sightings...you would have a flood of people and then it would slow down based on interest in a sighting.

2) people would just not be interested in your place because they are afraid to have an encounter and a slow down in business would happen.

3) some variation of 1 & 2.

All of these effect the economy in its own right.

 

No matter how much I don't want sasquatch to be a political issue...it is...which is why it has not been recognized yet.

 

This is just my 3 cents.


  • Vistasofmontana likes this
SRA Kris
Don't Believe, Know.

#9 Vistasofmontana

Vistasofmontana

    Novice Squatcher

  • Registered Users
  • Pip
  • 5 posts

Posted 15 December 2014 - 02:41 PM

I think the government and logging and mining and forestry companies continue to feel they have a big stake in whether bigfoot is found to be a real species. I think it all comes down to dollars and cents. Forestry companies have been known to go in and log off an area once a bigfoot sighting is reported, they want to get the profit out of that land before it may become protected.

 

To them, I am sure they feel that what would be the benefit for them? They wont be making money off them, and the possibility of losing money is too much for them to bare. But if there were a way to profit from them, then I feel they would be recognized immediately.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users