sebastian
Really into this!
Detective Gadget & Moderator
Posts: 512
|
Oh boy!
Feb 21, 2008 12:30:44 GMT -5
Post by sebastian on Feb 21, 2008 12:30:44 GMT -5
Stu from Cryptozoology.com has written the following post about the BFRO:
"I just noticed for the first time that the BFRO claim a sasquatch population in North America of 2,000-6,000. Does anyone know where this estimate was pulled from, & how it was reached? I can guess but I'm interested in your opinions, which, overall, would seem to be as valid as the BFRO's due to the complete lack of any sustainable material evidence.
And Moneymaker's heading up a trek to Florida to search for the skunk ape, armed with a few choice quotes to the press......
“We have to keep these expeditions low-key because unfortunately the subject is still a little stigmatised,” sighs Matthew Moneymaker, head of the BFRO, as he drives to the expedition's secret base camp in southwestern Florida.
“When people don't take this subject seriously, we don't even call it scepticism - it's ignorance. People only know about this stuff from tabloids ... they've created this “other Bigfoot”, a kind of cartoon concept rather than a rare species. They don't understand how creatures could live and die in the woods without us knowing.”
And my personal fave -
“A lot of people believe in Jesus,” he says. “But they don't have to see Jesus running across the road in front of their car or find Jesus's tracks to believe.”
I was wondering if Pangea are involved in this at all, or if it's a completely separate venture. I genuinely hope that, one of these days, such as Moneymaker actually come up with something concrete to belay my sceptical approach. I really do. Until then, their own approach does nothing but justify mine.
Stu"
LOL! Moneymaker used Jesus to compare with sasquatch, need I say more?
cheers, seb
|
|
vilnoori
Really into this!
Bone Collector
Posts: 547
|
Oh boy!
Feb 21, 2008 14:18:44 GMT -5
Post by vilnoori on Feb 21, 2008 14:18:44 GMT -5
Why not contact them and ask.
I'd say it's really hard to figure out. Thinking about it, although such a creature would be at the top of the food chain, and as an omnivore would have no shortage of food sources and in our vast wildernesses no shortage of habitat, the limiting factors seem to be
1. the long period of infancy and childhood, since a female surviving alone in the wild must lose a lot of the babies that she gives birth to because they don't seem to have an efficient community like we do in primary cultures, where the men hunt food while non-reproducing females and children forage and actively reproducing females stay home near the fire. As a mom I know what a handicap it can be to a) be highly pregnant, b) have an infant in one or both arms or clinging on your back, and c) have walking aged toddlers or young children to look after, without any help at all. There are sightings of females carrying infants in their arms, which means they can't do anything else! If she hides the baby and goes hunting and foraging, then the baby is put at quite a risk from predators and I think this is probably why a lot of the babies are lost. Even in other primates large numbers of babies die, and primates usually only have one at a time, one baby each year and a half and longer--up to four years--if you count infertility due to nursing. I'd expect them to nurse as long as possible, too. Factor in that females probably don't live nearly as long as we do, with the difficult conditions, etc. thus reducing the number of childbearing years, it seems to make perfect sense the reports that males compete over the few receptive females of reproductive age, with an alpha male traveling far and fathering most of the infants. It also would account for the reports that seem to show that these creatures revere and/or don't harm children but are attracted and fascinated by them. Perhaps to them children are rare.
2. Inbreeding. The types of habitat in which sightings occur do tend to be very isolating, and since these creatures are so big they each need a vast area to support them. This could easily lead to the bottleneck effect called founders effect and an increase in infertility. The wide range of fur colours, height and other features reported like numbers of toes, yellow palms and such makes me think that nearly all populations there might be are low in numbers and inbred. If they have a system like orangutans as has been suggested where the male travels around and the dominant male fathers most of the infants in an area, the effect would be even more pronounced.
3. We have no idea what diseases contact with humans can and probably has done to their populations. I'd expect, and the native americans seem to concur, that when Europeans came to this continent they brought new diseases that we already know created a huge depopulation of the indigenous peoples. I see no reason why these creatures would be immune either, when even chimps can acquire most human diseases. In fact I think we are seeing populations slowly recovering or trying to recover from this most recent onslaught. It's a good thing to keep in mind as a researcher going into the field, don't go when you are sick, not only to protect you, but to protect them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Oh boy!
Feb 21, 2008 21:56:35 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2008 21:56:35 GMT -5
BFRO - The gift that keeps on giving! At a minimum, MM's ravings make the rest of us in the comunity seem a little more sane.
In terms of population numbers and density, there's no way to know that or even guess that and the only anology would be to compare sasquatch to bears (grizzly or black) on the basis of similar caloric requirements. In Alberta, the griz population is 700 - 800, whereas the black is much higher, perhaps 10000+. Both have similar diet, ranges etc. But thats where any comparision between bear and squatch ends. Bears are built for multiple young, primates are not and at best a squatch could produce 1 offspring per year. I would guess that the youth mortality rate is less for squatch than for the traditional preditors as a function of the presumed family groups that have been seen (Alberta/Forestry Trunk Road sighting in the early 1990's). Even with this type of birth model, there's no way to guess the population without some sort of understanding of the breeding population.
Vilnoori brings up an excellent point, one that we at the WCSRO have discussed many times, the likelyhood that disease could have a serious effect on whatever population is out here, specifically viral borne illness. I would imagine squatch has a pretty robust immune system and is likely carrying every parasite on the planet, and has been exposed to all kinds of pathogenic bacteria. Only contact with a human would transfer viral pathogens and as far as I'm aware, that hasn't happened yet. (Except for those lucky BFRO folks who were "touched" by sasquatch through the tent on the last BC expedition LOL.
Could squatch's first true contact with man be its swan song as a species? I doubt it.
BB
|
|