How To Calculate Bigfoot Population In Squatchy Areas
According to an article from Daily-Times, the Chuska Mountains have become prime Bigfoot hunting grounds for Bigfoot researchers. The Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization sent a team in October 2002 to the Chuska Mountains to investigate reports of sightings.
The team went armed with scented bait as well as tracking and recording equipment. After spending five days camping in the mountains and searching for evidence of Bigfoot, the team found that the area they were in wasn't all that squatchy.
There are a number of ways to determine if a place is squatchy, one of them is based on black bear population estimates.
The math behind this is simple: Take the black bear population in an area and divide it by 68 and that should give you an estimate of how squatchy an area is. Or in other words, for each Bigfoot, there are at least 68 bears.
"We chose to rely mainly upon finding tracks as a way of detecting the presence of Sasquatches," the team wrote. "That was possible because of a characteristic of the Chuska Mountains that is surprisingly rare; instead of being hard and rocky, the ground is covered by rich, soft topsoil that takes tracks extraordinarily well."
The team did not find any evidence linked to Sasquatch, but after researching the mountains, the team found that the likelihood of meeting Sasquatch face-to-face was very low.
Based on the assumption that Sasquatch lives in black bear country, it is likely that the creature dwells in the Chuska Mountains, the organization found. The estimated population of black bears in North America around the time the team visited the Navajo Nation was about 685,000.
"Even using a generous estimate of 10,000 Sasquatches in North America, it would mean that for each Sasquatch, there are at least 68 bears," the team wrote in its report. "So, at best, in the Chuskas with 300 bears, there could have been 4.4 Sasquatches, and for us to have any real expectation of seeing one of those Sasquatches during our four days in the Chuskas we would have had to see at least 68 bears.
"We didn't see any bears (we saw one fresh track and one bear dropping). And if the North American Sasquatch population is around 1,000, we would have needed to see about 685 bears before having a statistical chance of seeing a Sasquatch," the report states.
"The same reasoning applies to finding the tracks of the two animals," the team found.
It's no wonder why nobody takes these folks seriously! How in the world can they come up with an estimate of one BF for 68 bears(where is their evidence to back up these claims!)..."A generous estimate of 10,000 sasquatches in North America"! There are fewer than 10,000 wolves in the lower 48, and they're pretty easy to find!! I believe that Sasquatch could exist, but the chances of the BFRO finding any real evidence seems unlikely IMHO!!.....Ken
ReplyDeleteThe most attractive thing about this blog is its variety of postings that span the spectrum from ridiculous to absurd.
ReplyDeleteDon't get me wrong, I love Bigfoot as much as everyone else but this is meaningless.
get lost creep
Deleteif this true pennsylvania is a prime state, especially
ReplyDeletepromise land area by the poconos
enlgish please
DeleteEnlgish? Haha.....classic
DeleteThere is nobody who knows or any kind of formula. I feel there are many more than what I have read projected, and based on the thousands of encounters every year.
ReplyDeleteChuck
Admittedly, the formula is vague, but let's look at it this way--at least people are trying to find more empirical ways of drawing conclusions about BF. It might be a faulty science, but at least they are trying to approach it from another angle. The concept that BF is where bears are is very accurate since both creatures would have similar caloric needs. The question should be--is BF an enemy of bears or does he follow them for food or do they follow him for food. My assumption would be that bears would follow the smart guy and hope to get some leavings. So, where there are bears trekking, you might find some BF prints along the way. I like outside the box thinking because approaching this only as hunters is very narrow.
ReplyDeletethird option... BFs have NOTHING to do with bears. Both just happen to be mammals in the woods. Bears' diet is probably more limited. The point is, who knows. It is different thinking, but my god... needs some basis. Is there a bear-cougar ratio???
DeleteApparently Grover Krantz once guessed there was 1 sasquatch per 100 black bears. Dr. Bindernagel adressed this last night on a radio interview, he thought that Dr. Krantz might have said that to explain why there have been no sasquatch bones found.
ReplyDeleteUsing a predator to predator ratio to account for population doesn't work, even in actual science.
ReplyDeleteBetter to spend time finding ways to avoid bear/ human contact. Bears can be viscous when confronted in the wild and every year many innocent people are mauled or killed. I recently wrote a piece on my blog with tips on how to defend yourself from an attacking dog, many of those tips can be applied to bears as well.
Or Bigfoot, if you're in to that sort of thing.
Go play with you test tubes. Your website sucks.
DeleteRight. No matter how absurd the science or the concept, it's all good cause people are trying really, really hard.
ReplyDeleteKudos.
Any correlation between black bear population density and bigfoot sightings has a much more parsimonious explanation...
ReplyDeleteI know everyone thinks new Jersey is nothing but concrete..This year 469 bears where killed and in 2010 592 were killed..Thats a lot of bears for a very populated state..We get our occasional BF sighting along the way too
ReplyDeleteAnd in December 2011 one of the largest in the lower 48 was killed..825 pounds
ReplyDeleteYour stats are completely wrong, Hunter.
DeleteNo they are not. Check nj division of fish and game and then tell me where I am wrong
DeleteI wonder why they chose black bears to determine the number of Sasquatch in a given area.
ReplyDeleteWhy not compare it to the number of smaller predators like wolves,coyotes and cougars?The latter three are carnivores,while black bears are omnivores.
Why not compare it to the population of mule or whitetail deer since this would be a main food source for a large being like Bigfoot.
The list could be very long and we really don't know the diet of Sasquatch.
The sciences appears to be arbitrary.
Bigfoot once told me that he bases where he lives on the available single women available in the area. (Or those willing to sneak around when their husband is gone off to work.) Find an area with plenty of single women, (or those who cheat) and you will find a large sasquatch populus. A large male squatch once informed me that the female sasquai isn't very attractive to them. His words of, "I'd rather date a black bear instead," may explain these bigfoot population and black bear numbers estimates
ReplyDeleteThis seat of the pants estimate, is complete bunk. If a person knew the right equipment to detect them within say 200 feet, and owned that equipment, he could detect at least a half dozen every single time that he parked his vehicle to set up his tent. And then he could drive down the road perhaps 3 miles, and detect 6 completely different Bigfoot investigating his camp. Whoever wrote the above article, clearly cannot hit his butt with both hands and certainly has no right to represent himself as qualified to count Bigfoot.
ReplyDeleteYou can purchase a micro - SD memory stick which has two gigabytes
ReplyDelete(GB) of memory while also purchasing a memory stick Pro -
Duo which only has one GB or less of memory space.
In order to test your personal computer memory, try using
some game that normally slowed down your computer.
The answer to this question depends on the following:
.
my page ... topcn.biz