What I would like to know is what % of men have see it verses the % of women and or children who have see it. One would think the % of men would be higher due to hunting seasons. But that's not always the case. I know plenty of men who hunt and do alot of bass fishing at night who have never had an encounter of anything like Sass. But, most of the sightings that are told to me are women. I realize this has been touched on before in other subjects but not as complete subject by itself. If there is a thread, for the life of me I can not find it. Which I'm sure there is one. I don't think we have discussed the %. It maybe a "guess" I may be asking for something that doesn't exist. Has anyone seen a % even if its a few years old?

Belle

I vaguely remember something from a couple of years ago, I believe Dr. Fahrenbach stated that sightings by women and/or children were likely to last longer than sightings by men. I know this isn't what you are asking, but you might talk to Dr. Fahrenbach about it as he may have some analysis of data to answer your question.

I've heard that theory, too.

Still, Belle's question is worth looking into, IMHO.

I have heard that too, but like I stated before, I question some of his data. Not that I'm an expert where his concenred. Maybe his right about that. Who know's.


Thanks

This is, indeed, an excellent subject of investigation, and another reason why a searchable database would be a great asset.

I also think that the higher percentage of encounters are by men because men are the higher percentage of humans in wilderness habitat.

I think some folks have broken down the ratio of male/female sasquatches that have been seen, and the higher percentage of sightings where the gender was mentioned by the human witness tend to favor more males seen. That may be so for the same reason that men see sasquatches more than women; male sasquatches tend to roam more than females.

I think females would have higher occurences due to the fact their hormones in the air are probably more prominent(hence my menstration theory).

I think Males would be less likely as BF would probably view them more as a nuisance or potential predator. I think most BF male encounters occur with hunters, some of whom probably shoot at BF.

Sightings is a different question than reported sightings.
It seems to be a common belief that a great many sightings are not reported. Given that, I am not sure what sort of valid information analyzing the reported sightings by age or sex could give us. We cannot even say who would report more often because we do not know who has had more or less sightings. All we can do is break down the reported sightings. Then - who is going to make the decision on which is a valid reported sighting and which is a hoax? To extrapolate anything from that data would be very bad from a strictly scientific point of view. Far too many unknowns.

I believe this to be true, but it poses yet another question:

What percentage of encounters (sightings, prints, vocalizations, etc.) go unreported?

I'll bet the percentage of non-reported encounters are much higher within the Native community.

The good news is that this fact increases the mathematical odds for ME to have an encounter.



It would certainly give us a percentage of gender sightings among reported encounters. That result could then be factored into unreported sightings as a trend.



To hell with strict. At this point, I want to be a little loose. I want tools that might bring me to an encounter.

In all seriousness...
I wonder if the act of human fornication, with all of it's inherent sounds & smells, might bring one in ?
Not sure about this theory, but I think it would definately make for an INTERESTING BFRO Expedition !
That one would probably sell out !!!

"We're puttin' the "F" back in BFRO ! "
" Sorry, all slots are full ! "
"Final Field Report will be posted on the Forum....

the Penthouse Forum !"

I may be way off base on this theory....
maybe I should do a polling of the female members ?
hmmmmm...

Do you want something useful or not?
Valid extrapolations are based on valid data. Those are useful within reasonable parameters.
Non-valid extrapolations tell you nothing.
You might as well flip a coin.

In the few moments that I was actually awake in Statistics I learned that extrapolation usually screws up results

:rotflmao:
As a good Friend of my once said.. He's gonna smear marshmellow cream all over his body. See if Momma bigfoot would give chase. And if anyone hears a ear piercing scream, pay no mind. Its just Momma Slapping his ass

Belle

I would prefer useful. But beggars can't be choosers.

While an estimation of unreported encounters can easily become a dangerous stretch, forming theories from reported sightings is all we have, even if you suspect some of those reports are fraudulent.

Indeed, we can be assured that a certain percentage of reports are frauds. Does that mean that all reports, then, must be discounted because they cannot be proven? Can we not simply accept that an unknown percentage are false, and forge ahead with what we've got hoping to find data along the way to help us weed out the hoaxes?

A trend among sightings of a higher percentage of males observed, especially if that trend is universal among sightings from different regions of the continent, can be useful in assuming that males range out more often than females. That can lead to theories that, for example, females are holed up with young somewhere. That theory can compel some hunters to theorize that seeking a sedentary quarry may be more successful than seeking a nomadic one. These theories and our reactions to them may be fruitless, but they may also lead to discovery.

Continually doing the same thing usually leads to the same result. And when that result is nothing, perhaps it's time to try other things.

Patience is a virtue.