It's obvious that Bigfoot creatures have inhabited North America for a very long time. It seems that there must be a reasonable population number's of Bigfoot's in the wild to produce enough offspring in order for the species to not have gone exstinct up until now. I've heard alot of opinions on how many Bigfoot's researchers and Pro-Bigfoot scientist estimate that there are inhabiting North America. How many Bigfoot's do you think there are in North America?

Looking at the number of sightings I would say quite a lot of them. They be good at hiding from us though.

Scott

This is a very hard one to guess at.
First of all you have to think about how many in one area it would take to keep them healthy. Then you have to consider if they migrate or not, How big there ranges are, does one male service one female or many ?, As well as many other things need to go into the thought of it.
I would think that if one male can service many females then the population would be much smaller then if they are one on one like most humans are. If that one male covered a very large range the population would be even smaller.
Personally I think they are more like us and mate one on one like humans. I think that from the way sightings happen when more then one animal is seen. I have read reports of family groups of male, Female and young ones. But have never heard of one male with a few females.
I feel that the population in the east is a LOT smaller then out west. I feel that some in breeding has happened and that has resulted in some abnormal traits to keep coming up. Like the 3 toes prints and other things that pop up every now and then that is different.
I voted for the 6000 and included in that number all of north America.

You need a "Who the heck knows?" option.

Enough of them to dance on the head of a pin!

Guessing population is pointless.
Will it lead to any solid facts. Doubtful.
Will it lead to any kind of facts. Doubtful.
Will it lead to a speculation?
Probably.
Just what we need..speculation based on speculation.
We will no doubt learn a lot from this... :surrender:

If one wishes to speculate..then one should at least speculate about an opinion which is in the realm of being a possibility.

You may as well as how many angels can dance on the head of a pin! Seeing as no one is qualified to pass even a guess on this subject!

However, it would be interesting to know such a thing..

Not enough..... is my vote

15,000+ there is a sasquatch behind every tree, always watching us they are. :thoughtpolice:

I have no idea how many and will not guess.

But I will venture to say this. The BF population seems to be growing. Global warming and mild winters are the reason.

The critter is being seen all over north america where it wasn't that long ago and it was basically just a west coast thing.

that would explain my mother in law!

Native Alaskan talk is similar.

The numbers of all animals (fur species, ungulates, and predators) are at an all time high in North America.

There's every reason to believe that sasquatch numbers are as healthy as 100 years ago.




Please......

While climate is likely a factor, it is certainly not the only one.

At this point any BF topic is speculation, and in my opinon speculation can lead to solid facts; maybe not right now before our very eyes, but certainly later speculation can lead to an idea for a method or thought on any subject that can make a difference in BF research. Why block the thoughts of others, like slow footed buffalo. >15,000.

estimating a Bigfoot population is difficult without having a baseline number to compare against, however I'll go with the 15,000+ number.

we can reasonably infer that the number of Bigfoot are at an all time high as per Huntster's statement citing that the "numbers of all animals (fur species, ungulates, and predators) are at an all time high in North America."

certainly one clear natural advantage for Bigfoot is that it's main competitor the Grizzly, which would be the only animal that could pose a real threat (other than man), was all but wiped out in the lower 48 states over the past 200 years.

I, like everyone else, have absolutely no idea.... if they exist at all.... and I hope and am inclined to believe that there is a reasonably good chance that they do. However, I am quite surprised to see "over 15,000" with votes in the poll. For a creature of its size (inspite of how clever, intelligent, secretive, etc.) to be in such relatively high density numbers, and to have not been captured, killed, or filmed (documentary) by now, borders on the fringes of absurd......IMHO.

I think somewhere around the 1,000 mark.

I don't agree that an estimated Bigfoot population of 15,000 would be considered a relatively high density population. relative to what?

North America covers an area of 9,355,000 square miles. 9,355,000 divided by 15,000 = 1 Bigfoot per approximately 624 square miles. Now I agree that's not a useful relationship as Bigfoot's range does not cover all of NA. Let's make a reasonable assumption that Bigfoot's range covers 10% of NA; then we have 1 Bigfoot per approximately 62 square miles. Is that a relatively high density population?

Extremely.. when you consider...

[I found these from various sources. ]

grizzly bear—From 30-1100 sq. miles depending on vegetation. They require substan-tial vegetation.

wolverine—From 300-400 sq. miles, in general. Wolverines need all sizes of mammals to prey on and enough other large predators (wolves, lions, etc.) to kill large animalsa nd leave carcasses which make up the wolverine’s primary food source.

bobcat—1 - 65 sq. miles depending on availability of prey adaptable to - all terrain.
mountain lion– 40 - 360 sq. mi. (Colorado) depending on prey base(male ranges are larger that female ranges).

lynx—6 -19 sq. miles dense forest, northern areas - mature coniferous forests, need apopulation of small mammals to prey on.

wolf—20 to 600 sq. miles - need year round supply of large ungulates (deer, elk, moose,bison) and denning cover.

So now we are into supply and demand... Could 62 sq. miles possibly provide for the demands of such a large creature?
Now we are dealing with comparable facts..not speculation.
Even so it will be difficult to answer..no one has studied the dietary habits of a Sasquatch..or the ranging or migration patterns of the beast. How can they? First you have to find one.

You mean there's more than one?

An increase in sightings wouldn't necessarily mean an increase in population. With more and more woodlands being destroyed for urban-sprawl, bf's habitat is dwindling. More sightings/encounters will be inevitable.

Plus, there are more people going into the woods; loggers, campers, hunters, tree-huggers,etc. That could also cause an increase in sightings.

On the other hand the bf population could be increasing. I'm from southern Iowa, and I can remember when the first bald eagle was spotted along the Des Moines River in the mid-80s. It made front-page news because it meant that an endangered species was making a comeback. Now there are so many eagles along the river, you don't even give them a second glance.

Maybe it's a combination of all these things. Hopefully, one of these days someone will have an encounter with one and actually remember that they have a camera with them. With the digital photography of the 21st century, maybe the blurry blobsquatches will be a thing of the past.

Relative to the # of captured/killed/deceased specimens and credible sightings/filmings ( when one considers how many people are in the woods per year... working, hunting, camping, sight-seeing, hiking, etc.... and yes I know that not all sightings are reported).

I think Bigfoot's diet includes things that not all animals are able to obtain. It may include a lot of the animals themselves: wolf's, wolverines,bobcats, etc. This is pure speculation on my part, but I believe BF to be much more intelligent than any of the other animals in North America. From some reports BF even lends a helping hand to other BF in the group. A grizzly probably wouldn't help another bear over a fence. I don't know how dense primate populations are in areas where they have a good habitat, but I think that is where we would wan't to base our speculations. How many and how many different kinds per area in question.

According to the American Wildlife Society a gorilla needs 228 sq. miles to range.

But then..there is this from the G.R.A.S.P website...

Thankyou GrandCherokee. That sounds like some of the ideas about BF, but then maybe this info is what they are basing it on. Thanks again.

and now that we have that nagging gorilla question answered...LOL!

seriously though, Erectus does make a very good point that my population density guesstimate of Bigfoot, based upon a 15,000+ number may be way too high "Relative to the # of captured/killed/deceased specimens and credible sightings/filmings ( when one considers how many people are in the woods per year... working, hunting, camping, sight-seeing, hiking, etc.... and yes I know that not all sightings are reported). "

however back in 1992 Grover Krantz on p. 162 of 'Bigfootprints' states that the "Pacific Northwest contains at least 200,000 bears" and "there could be at least 2,000 sasquatches in the same area." Krantz concludes that "(i)f the sasquatch is actually as widespread over the continent as current reports would have it, we could easily postulate that there are anywhere from ten to twenty thousand of them."

fyi - I was not able to edit my above post due to the time limit having expired so:

"200,000 bears" should read "two hundred thousand bears" and
"2,000 sasquatches" should read " two thousand sasquatches"

sorry for the typos.

I guessed 6,000, if I'm proven right do I win a prize? Seriously though with the number of sightings and everything I'd wager 8,000 might be closer the number, and I would have voted that except I forgot about Canada, and for that I apologize. oh well...

KW - Now remembers that North America does not = USA

Bigfoot Population: 2839, as of today.


Fox told me when he came by to borrow some garlic today.

Not true! The west coast certainly had more media based attention drawn to it in years past , but sightings and legends in general have been a part of many many other locations for centuries.


As for the population? No idea!

A dead BF would have been found by now if there are 15 000+ .

Even if they bury their dead.


I seriously douth that there are significantly more then 2000 in Northamerica.

Even if they are mostly nocturnal.

there may well be only 2000 Bigfoot in NA, I would only disagree with your point that if there were 15,000+ Bigfoot a dead body would have been found by now.
consider the following as reported in 2002:

"Canada's black bear population was estimated to be between 372,500 and 382,500 in 1988, and it has risen to between 396,000 and 476,000. In the United States it rose from between 253,000 and 375,000 to between 339,000 and 465,000 in the period."

see: http://www.northcountrytrail.org/news/bear3.htm

finding dead bear remains in the wild is extremely rare as nature is the perfect recycler. Grover Krantz was on record as there being the possibility of 1 Bigfoot per 100 bears in the same range. therefore considering the huge numbers of bears and the rarity of find dead bear remains, the possibility of finding a dead Bigfoot would be even less likely.

Another way to approach this questions is through conservation genetics. Let's say we assume the lowest choice to be most accurate: 500 individuals roaming over a North American range that stretches from peninsular Florida to central Alaska. Some may dispute this assumption, but the reports I read from Arkansas, Ohio, and Indiana are no less credible to me than the reports from Washington, Oregon, and British Columbia. So I take the postion that, if such a creature exists, it's one species in North America, and the individuals that comprise the population (at least dispersing males) are largely nomadic.

OK, with a total population of 500, the rule of thumb for the number of breeders (the effective population size) is 36% of total, or 180 individuals. (That number would be quite a bit smaller if the population is prone to fluctuate widely bewteen generations.) If we make another huge leap as to how much of North America is usable habitat for these creatures, I'm relatively generous and inclined to think they should at least be able to disperse through 33% of the land area, or somewhere in the neighborhood of 3 million square miles.

So can a population be sustained through the dispersal of 180 individuals throughout 3 million square miles? I doubt it, because that would require an individual home range for the breeders on the order of 17,000 square miles. That's a lot of lonely miles between lovesick wood apes, and doesn't sound plausible to me in terms of their ability to find each other with enough regularity to sustain a breeding population.

OK, so I'll turn it around. What could be the population size in those 3 million square miles if we assign a home range that, although still huge, is more likely for an animal the size of a sasquatch? Let's say 800 square miles. Well, 3 million/800 = 3750. So by my reckoning, it would probably take an effective population size of about 3750 to sustain a breeding population over the total land area in North America that produces sasquatch reports. With the effective population size about 36% of the total, that gives a total population estimate in the ballpark of 10,000.

So IF sasquatch is a flesh and blood creature, and IF it is a diploid organism that reproduces sexually, and IF its population ecology is at all similar to that of other large mammals, and IF it occurs in remote areas throughout North America, and IF it currently exists as a stable population throughout its range . . .

then my best estimate of its population size in North America is a minimum of 10,000. Any smaller than this would be extremely unlikely to support a population over a few generations.

So, if there are AT LEAST 10,000 sasquatch out there, then why can't we bring one in? People are pretty smart too, but we still get hit by cars. Anyone care to figure out the probability of a pedestrian fatality from vehicular collision in towns of approximately 10,000 people? How 'bout for pedestrians dressed in dark clothing that cross roads in the middle of the night with apparent disregard for oncoming traffic?

I know there are huge holes to be blown in any of a dozen different assumptions i've made here. This is just the kind of stuff I consider when contemplating the reality of how these creatures would be likely to exist, if indeed they did. Have fun,
~Saskeptic

Interesting.......just got on the computer and "already voted on this poll".......computers lie.....

As posted earlier there are a lot of variables to consider......here in my end of AZ....there are 3 animals who, at least, are here part of the time......in ID I was aware of 5 in Benewah County.....I suspect that there were more there....and I suspect that they were more permanent residents than the ones in AZ......requring fewer square miles of habitat to survive.....

My, perhaps too conservative, wild assed guess is around a couple of thousand...in the continental US....

I wonder how many people there are out there armed and on the hunt for BF on a regular basis.

I bet there are more then a few people that want to be an instant celebrity after shooting our friend.

There are people who spent thousands of our hours in the wilderness of Washington and nearby regions and yet found nothing that indicates that the ape exists.

I am pretty sure that Inbreeding is a huge problem for the BF population and that they are not far from being extinct.

Interesting math. Difficult to dismiss, too. One can argue for adjustment of the numbers/percentages, but the basic formula appears sound.



There's more good analytical speculation.

If Krantz's population ratio is reasonable, than 1% of an estimated 838,000 North American black bears would be 8,380 sasquatches.

Saskeptic's estimate of 10,000 is reasonably close to Krantz's ratio product of 8,380.

Either way, that is close to the minimum population needed to sustain it's population.



I also suspect magikern is close to the mark here, too.

And even if a population of 8,000 to 12,000 sasquatches exist in North America, there will be regions with healthier populations than others. I've long suspected that if there are remaining populations in places like the Florida peninsula, they are likely on the verge of extinction, and conversely, populations in the more remote coastal mountain ranges of the Pacific Northwest might be quite healthy.

I voted for 2,000 individuals. It was a wild guess based on my belief that these creatures are exceedingly rare. After reconsidering the above points, I'm probably low, but I still suspect the population is lower than 8,000 to 12,000. Still an undefensible guess, I base that on the number of sighting and footprint reports. I could easily (and hopefully) be incorrect.

If true, however, that would mean that these creatures may be on the road to extinction, at least regionally.

I wonder if anybody has tried a population estimate based upon the average number of sighting and footprint reports?

That's where a searchable, sortable electronic database could be helpful.

Could be true, but there is a paradox with inbreeding. It does produce more unfit individuals, infant mortality and early death due to recessive negative genes pairing up. But on the other hand it leadsto eliminating the unfit genes faster, and to the surviving members having more fit genes. In this way it can accelerate evolution, but that only works if there is enough population to keep going.

According to Gould's controversial theory, inbreeding can also lead to new species. It's possible that BF could have evolved from another hominid in a relatively short time through inbreeding.

Gould´s controversial theory may explain why reports from Russia indicate a different ape.

BF did most likely go over Beiring Strait many thousand years ago and a different looking ape may have evolved from Inbreeding.

It still seems unlikely how it could have made the fur darker and less reddish and even stranger a foot taller then the Asian reports indicate.

Every year hundreds of bears are killed across North America by hunters. Even if there are FAR fewer Sasquatch hunters than bear hunters out in the wilds, shouldn't we be seeing at least a few dead Sasquatch now and again? Or at least some better video/photos?

I would think that more hunters would report them at bait stations, while predator calling, and while glassing large areas.

That's also what leads me to believe that:

1) They're even more rare than these estimates indicate
2) They are primarily nocturnal
3) Their primary habitat is dense, tall vegetation

Right - this is where I have real difficulties with the probability of sasquatch existence. We're working with a figure of basically 1 million black bears in the US and Canada, and their range largely overlaps that from whence sasquatch reports emanate. (Although, a lot of reports also come from areas that definitely don't support black bears.)

I think a conservative estimate of 10,000 is the minimum viable population size for a highly mobile large mammal that occupies this range. Even if I'm extra generous and cut my estimate in half, we're looking at a 5000/1000000 = 0.005 sasquatch/black bear ratio. So for every thousand black bears that are shot, run over, orphaned and left at wildlife rehabilitation centers, trapped and relocated by wildlife personnel, radio-collared, clearly photographed, etc., we should suspect that at least FIVE sasquatches would meet the same fate. I'm willing to bet that there are at least 1000 examples of human contact with black bears that produce irrefutable evidence of the encounter every year in the US alone. So shouldn't we be able to produce the same for 5 sasquatch encounters every year?

Even if we factor in the incredible intelligence and wariness of sasquatches, it just doesn't add up for me. Let's say the ratio is 0.001. That's at least ONE piece of irrefutable evidence annually. But we have nothing irrefutable, and I've been following this story for 30 years.

Added to this, I read those BFRO reports, and these creatures do not strike me as particularly wary. They raid chicken coops, peer in windows, throw rocks, scream at the top of their lungs, hang around Bluff Creek in broad daylight, stroll casually across hayfields and highways. . .

Yes, it's rare to find a dead-of-natural causes black bear, but there is no shortage of physical evidence that they exist. I cannot conceive of how the same does not apply to sasquatch, unless, in fact, they don't.

The first point, I'm fairly certain that we have at least 5 accounts of sasquatch that (if the general public was more accepting) would be considered 100% reliable per year.

Your second point that I've quoted here, what kind of physical evidence are looking for? Scat? Would be hard to tell bear from sasquatch I'd imagine. Prints? It'd be interesting to take that same .05% and multiply that by the number of bear prints found in a year.

Please remember also that many many sightings and evidence of sasquatch goes unreported due to the fact hunters and other naturalists don't want to be viewed as "believers" in something society by and large considers a myth.

KW

I voted for about 10,000. This is based of reports I tracked for about two yrs. trying to acount for mates and little bf's. My total was just over 9,000 for the us and canada. I didnt get any further in that are due to I starting seeing possible migration routes, and went in the are. then My son can a long and well havent done a thing since... so sad....

But I due believe that they travel in family pods thay do not stay in an area to long, those next to settlements. I also think there are areas of overlaping teartorities, How big is anyones guess. and some will say this all guess, and well you are correct, but its guessing or just putting two and two together.

the fact that BF is mostly night time or early morning dweller, and possibility of cave dwelling lower the chance that a sighting may happen. Sorry this part may be but while driving back home to Michigan from Arizona, when crossing threw Meruissei crap howver you spell it, I was amazed at the amount of caves in the state. Just makes you think..

The irrefutable kind. When a hunter shoots a bear, there's a body. When an 18-wheeler nails a bear, there's a body. When a biologist straps a radio collar around a bear's neck, we have the ability to follow it, walk right up to it, and dart it again if need be. When somebody snaps a clearly recognizable photo - not a "blobbruin" - of the bear rooting around in the shed where they keep their sunflower seed, we have irrefutable evidence that black bears exist. I'm postulating that there are probably at least 1000 such encounters between humans and black bears every year in the US, but that we're still waiting for the FIRST such encounter between humans and sasquatch.

I agree, many sasquatch encounters go unreported. So do the vast majority of human/bear encounters. It doesn't make the national news when a bear gets tagged by a passing car, but it would if a sasquatch did. Despite tantalizing wild stories, we have no proof that anyone since, say, 1967, has shot and killed, run over and killed, or darted and radio-collared a sasquatch. Neither is there proof that anyone has come across one killed by any other means. And I doubt anyone is sitting on an unambiguous, irrefutable photo of one.



Here's another wrinkle: if sasquatches exist, I submit that they must be increasing in number. A hundred years ago across the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, and Southeast, forest cover only amounted to about 20-30% of the land area. Wolves, cougars, elk, bears, and even white-tailed deer had been hunted to extirpation throughout most of their eastern range. There is no way creatures like sasquatch could have 1) escaped detection or 2) survived in the eastern US during most of the 20th century. The only way there could be sasquatch in Ohio today is if they dispersed there from farther afield. If animals are dispersing and recolonizing former (now suitable again) range, then the population as a whole must be increasing.

That's why I think the 10,000 estimate is a minimum. The only way for the species to occur continent-wide (and it does according to reports), is for there to be A LOT MORE OF THEM THAN WE THINK. We can't have it both ways - we can't say these creatures occur all over the place, but place their population numbers too low to be ecologically sustainable. But if we bump the number up too high, then we can't escape the fact that there should be more (SOME!) irrefutable evidence that they exist at all.

Again, not trying to tell folks that they didn't see, smell, or hear what they saw, smelled, and heard, just trying to present as rationally as I can why the notion of a living, breathing sasquatch in North America is so roundly dismissed by "mainstream" (whatever that means) wildlife biologists. Yes, it's extremely rare to trip over a black bear carcass that dies of natural causes, but it takes more than an insightful observation like this to argue for the plausability of sasquatch.

Anyway, it's a lot more fun to banter with y'all on this topic than to discuss lynx and hare population cycles with the wildlife students. Thanks again for being open to a skeptical point of view.

~Saskeptic

Hello Saskeptic. I would like to point out that photos of bears that aren't clear can still be recognized as bears. Someone will always say, "Oh, I see it, it's a black bear!" The same can not be said of a not clear photo of a bigfoot. It's one thing to claim there is a clear photo of a bear in the shed, but is it really all that clear? Also, not all bears drop dead the instant they are shot or run into or over by a truck. When the same effort and funding that our biologists use to tag a bear is used to tag a bigfoot, we shall then be able to track our first one (if BF will leave the collar intact, he's very clever you know). The biologists will have to "know their stuff" to find bigfoot, just as they do to find a bear. I enjoyed the points you made, but see the similarities differently.

Saskeptic, you sound like my wildlife professor I find that wildlife biologist have more of a closed mind on topics such as this than anyone else. Why? They spend a heck of alot of time in the woods and never experience the creature. I've argued with my wildlife professor for four years that it is very resonable that Felix concolor inhabits Louisiana. He always said no. Then we went to Tensas National Wildlife Refuge (eastern Louisiana) where they had a stuffed cougar that was shot there some 30 years ago. Along with pictures of other cougars people have shot. The biologist there think that they still have a small population. My point is that if something is possible, it can be. 2)Why not? Where I'm from in southeast Louisiana, there were very few deer there until the Great Southern Lumber Company moved in, in 1906. The pines (primarily longleaf/loblolly) were so big four grown men couldn't reach around them. These big pines closed the canopy, allowing little sunlight to reach the ground, meaning very little food for animals. I agree elk and beer suffered in the SE US because of habitat loss. But since the 1930's we've been busting our tail to practice sustainable forestry. I think you have to agree (because it's a fact) that deer and turkey populations are at an all time high in the southeast. In Pineville, La (central) that found a female Louisiana Black Bear that had six cubs last year; normal litter for LA Black Bear and American Black Bear is two. Why? Because the amount of food and the amount of habitat has grown (habitat: due to great efforts for reforestation since farming droped out in the great depression) greatly in the 20th century. 1) who said they escaped detection? I certainly think there has been a rise in sasquatch population since the 19th century, every other population has (except Ivory billed woodpecker ) Not trying to start an argument byfar, that's just my take on it.

OK, I’ll take up the challenge. According to Pedestrian Injury Prevention there were 5220 pedestrians killed by cars in 1998 in the US (out of a population of 260 million) or about 1 in 50,000 people. About 1/3 of those pedestrians were intoxicated, leaving about 1 in 75,000 sober pedestrians killed by cars. Of those 1 in 75,000 sober pedestrians killed by cars, only 31% were killed in rural areas. That means one American in 242,000 is killed each year while sober in a rural area.

So, assuming Bigfoot doesn’t drink, if there are 10,000 Bigfoot, and they have the same ability as humans to move away from moving cars, then 0.04 bigfoot should be killed by cars each year, or one every 25 years. If there are only 5,000 bigfoot, then one every 50 years.

Any remember that cars in rural areas have only been around about 50 years.

Agreed, but I was referring to crystal clear, you-can-see-his-wet-nose type bear photos.




He IS indeed clever! I doubt anyone will ever be successful darting, collaring, and tracking a sasquatch with today's technology!

I like to think that I'm an exceptionally open-minded wildlife professor, as evidenced by the fact that I'm investing time in "The Best Bigfoot Talk On The Web!"java script:emoticon('B)')



The eastern cougar thing has a long history. They were certainly hunted out of the vast majority of their range when the East was settled. As the 20th century progressed, widespread farm abandonment and maturation of forest areas cut over earlier in the century restored habitat for lots of species. Then came reports of cougars. I had a professor in the early 80s who consulted with state biologists in VA on cougar sighting reports. They had amassed a dataset of nearly 4000 reports, many of which were investigated when the report included a print, photo or some other physical evidence. People would swear up and down that they had seen a cougar, but invariably the evidence didn't hold up to scrutiny. They saw bobcats, dogs, deer, etc. and mistook them for cougars. This kind of experience was not unique to VA, of course. Despite the lack of evidence, though, most thinking biologists were/are prepared to believe that at least some people out there are seeing real, live cougars. Whether or not they have a sustainable breeding population is the new question. (I, in fact, believe they do, and assume we've got breeding cougars at least in the Ozarks/Smokies/Appalachians and the heavily forested South.)

So you're absolutely right - most wildlife types are close-minded to unusual wildlife reports, but there is a precendent for it based on the huge number of erroneous reports they document every year.





I agree 100%. We've now got more mature forest (albeit 2nd growth) east of the Mississippi than we have since about 1830. But around 1900, we had basically nothing. Picture NY and PA at about 20% forested. It was an entirely different landscape than today. With a few rare exceptions, and Tensas Swamp is one (even it is 2nd growth, though), there were no really big, uncut areas of forest in the East in the early 20th century. So a sasquatch roaming the Ridge and Valley of PA today could not have done the same 100 years ago. THat means if they're there today, they must have dispersed from somewhere else as forests matured to their present state. Deer, turkey, bear, beaver, ravens, moose - take your pick - these species are reclaiming former areas because their populations are increasing as more habitat becomes suitable for them. I submit that sasquatch must be increasing as well.

Tell your wildlife professor to lighten up - he sounds too dogmatic!

WOO-HOO! (Homer Simpson style.) I knew somebody would check into this!




No, but I bet he hits those rotten apples in the orchards when he gets a chance . . . I say for sheer darkness and apparent disregard for vehicles, sasquatch road crossing behavior is pretty close to that of a human drunk, but I'll go with your estimate.





Wow! Great job. So I guess it should be any day now. 25 years ago was 1980, 25 years before that was 1955 - pretty close to the time that the sasquatch phenomenon gained national media recognition. I'd say we're overdue for a vehicular sasquatch mortality . . .

Mr. Saskeptic, I say ol chap, there are a few sasquatch sighting reports by motorists who witnessed a sasquatch crossing in front of them, or running along the side of the road; and at least one report of a BF creature actually being struck by a vehicle, but the creature left the scene of the accident, as the story goes.

According to my statistical research, there is enough plausible Bigfoot territory in the United States to sustain a population of about 280,000 individuals. I'm sure that this may seem very high to many of you, but this is actually similar to the chimpanzee population size in Africa, which is under similar stress from human activity.

Just a west coast thing?...

What kind of crack are You smokin?...