BFRO / What's New - America and Canada / Archives / 03-29-2007 / North American Sasquatch population

Topie: North American Sasquatch population
November 25th, 2006 10:19 AM
rjgorny (To D. Freel or whomever: Feel free to delete this identical thread at Images. I forgot where I was when I posted.)

I think we tend to focus on the happenings in this country and we overlook our hockey-obsessed northern neighbors. Canada has incredibly HUGE areas of undeveloped land capable of sustaining squatches, along with the fact that the vast majority of the Canadian human population lives within a short drive of the U.S., makes me think that there might be many more squatches on the continent than we realize. I think the population might be quite a bit greater in Canada than in the U.S. (perhaps twice as many, if not more). I've always heard of estimates in the 5,000 animal range, but that seems low to me, given the huge habitat areas and the need to maintain genetic diversity in order to keep the species going.
November 25th, 2006 04:29 PM
Ted S. There is also a lot of Alaska that fits into the Canada realm of habitate, there is a place on the Coast that has a large population. I beleive it was mentioned in a book on the subject of Bigfoot on Coastal Alaska and BC, Canada. How can we even guesstimate the population of a creature we know mostly nothing about? it is like asking how many snails live in Lake Michigan, all you can do is guess.
November 25th, 2006 11:57 PM
SwiftSpear Not too many, not too few... Enough to self propagate, not enough to be obtrusive to our society.
November 27th, 2006 05:04 AM
Tracy J Hi Ted...I'm a coastal veteran of southwest alaska...I'm very curious as to the Big Guy's habitat in Detail....Who's to say the land bridge isn't still inhabited?...And, given the floral and fauna and food resources, why couldn't this branch of squatches be bigger than the typical west coast squatch?....it seems that every mammal that I observe out here, is somewhat larger than their inland relatives.... the weather and the competition for food is more intense...abundance of pure protein in the water and land...hense, bigger critters...I would love to get the author's name....Tracy J
November 27th, 2006 01:21 PM
captainkillmore I personally think there are far more then anticipated in the wilds. As a total population at least , the real question is density and locations. :cool:
November 27th, 2006 05:00 PM
Tracy J The area that interests me the most are the volcanic regions and river systems of the Alaskan Peninsula...I wonder if these guys are territorial, or if they are nomadic travelers that follow the food chain with the seasons...Being that they are so large and ripped, they must cover quite a large territory...do they hunt in packs?...hmmmm?.... :eek:
December 3rd, 2006 11:08 AM
RicardoNascimento Personally, I believe them to be territorial and I believe them to live in family units with a dominant male. On a trip to the coast of B.C. a friend and I had encounters with two different groups. The second group seemed to have an old male who we believed was trying to intimidate and assert its dominance. We heard very loud intense knocking, samurai type arguing between at least two of the creatures and screaming as well. This went on until the wee hours of the morning. My guess is that they are very territorial.

As for them being large and ripped; in Jeff Meldrums book, "Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science" he talks about the size of the creatures having to do with them being able to retain their body heat more efficiently the bigger they are. The with larger size the ratio between their volume to the surface area of their skin increases, so a bigger animal loses less body heat in cold weather compared to a small animal. He explained that this is why bears get bigger as we move north.

Any hunter can tell you also that, large animals such as deer, moose and elk, once killed and dressed have very little body fat, they probably don't store any because they constantly forage for food and don't hibernate. In "Sasquatch: Legend meets science" he touches on the theory that the sasquatch most likely do not hibernate either but are less active in the winter, as sightings decrease in the colder months.

With the steady supply of food such as deer and elk and small rodents such as rabbits, along with eating some types of pine needles and types of bark, they probably don't need to store fat to survive. I also believe that they store food for the winter, when it may be less available.

My opinion is that they are more abundant than we think.

Just my two cents.
December 3rd, 2006 04:54 PM
trailrider Human outdoor activity decreases in winter also, reducing sightings.

Is there something under the bark of trees they would eat ? Long intervals between meals must be common for them. We are having a very harsh early winter on the BC coast again. Its going to be a tough one for them.

I wonder if in BC they heasd for the coastline, where conditions are milder, and shellfish still available in winter. The size theory sure meshes with the recent sighting near here

There could be 5 - 10 thousand in BC alone. The majority of the west coast in BC is essentially uninhabitated by man.
December 3rd, 2006 08:56 PM
Jake Levi I am far more conservative on numbers estimates, mainly because there are an 'informed' estimate of ~ 12,000 brown bears in North America. Think about that. There are literally thousands of hours of video of browns in the wild. They have been heavily studied, yet, their numbers are right about what some are estimating BF at, yet all the photos and videos are low quality. And not able to satisfy demands as proofs. The Patterson-Gimli film is the gold standard as is mentioned in Dr Meldrums book, yet it is still disputed.

I would like to think that there were 12-14,000 BF (Bigfoots-Big feets???) but I think an actual number of 2-4,000 in NA would be much closer .

Time will tell.
December 3rd, 2006 09:13 PM
trailrider Good to have a level headed educated informed biologist on the forum Jake - Thanks - but i still say at least 5000 in BC - Alaska .....
(Edited by trailrider)
December 4th, 2006 07:36 AM
Jake Levi Dont know how level headed I am but color me conservative for sure.

I hope that you are right, some historical support for a population center in BC, much earlier native reports and legends, and less human intrusion on them. Driving north of the east side to Ft Nelson several years ago I ws struck by the vast tracts I drove through and what could be there. Then from Ft Nelson west its even more wild. I love BC, very close to my idea of heaven on earth, except for the govt, gun control sucks.

I think , some time down the road that it is possible we will find that BC is the concentration for squatch and different family groups dispersed out from there.

We may well be much closer in total numbers , and concentration then you think.
December 4th, 2006 06:13 PM
Jake Levi Another correction, self imposed, two today, oh well,

I came across some brown bear figures today that said lower 48 count is right around a 1,000. But in Canada and Alaska it could be as high as 10,000.

I am still staying with 2,000-4,000 totally in NA for BF. Skunk apes etc I dont have a clue about. Barely do on BF.