View Single Post
Old
12-05-2012, 09:55 PM
  #96
Ronnie Bass
elite pissy upside
 
Ronnie Bass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: New Jersey
Country: Ireland
Posts: 19,997
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by No Fun Shogun View Post
.... seriously? You're asking this now?
Is this a rhetorical question?


Quote:
Originally Posted by No Fun Shogun View Post
Alright, fine. Simply put, for the viability of a species to survive, it needs two things.... food and the ability to successfully produce offspring, both of which require resources. It doesn't matter what a Bigfoot would eat, it would need a lot of it just by the very nature of its size. A large carnivore species, even if in very small numbers, would leave behind extremely high numbers of kills and would thus be traceable. A large herbivore species would need broader territory to collect food, which opens the possibilities of people just happening upon them. And, in order to be sustainable as a species, it would need to have a significant population, in the high hundreds if not thousands, and even that would likely be at the very least. And, on top of that, even with those low numbers, which is what stands for larger herbivore species that we're aware of that are on the verge of endangered or critical status, the likely result of their low numbers is from contact with humans or human introduced species. As I'm doubting that a new species has caused them to start dying out, and even if it did it'd just mean more bodies that we should be finding, for a species to have even such as low of a population as I described it would imply either their numbers have been low for centuries to predate western contact (signifying a prolonged population bottleneck) or that their numbers are dwindling due to human contact, most likely from hunting. As we aren't seeing stuffed Bigfoots all over the place or genuine Sasquatch fur coats on the market, it seems that sudden population decline due to human encroachment is unlikely, so a prolonged bottleneck is the only possible scenario.

So, for that necessary genetic diversification to have large enough numbers to remain viable as a species and yet small enough in total numbers to best remain hidden from human observation, we're still talking about hundreds in terms of total species population based on simple models we find with other species of similar size, or even smaller size, all of which is relatively easily tracked, quantified, measured, and even interfered with to try to keep species alive. These are all obviously estimates, but roughly in line with plenty of larger large animal minimum requirements for necessary genetic diversification, and likely even on the low end of what would be required without human assistance protecting their status as endangered from other humans.

Now, to even feed that few, they would need resources. Even if they were just grass eaters, we'd probably be talking about a very broad territory that they'd need to roam, likely a significant chunk of the Pacific Northwest on both sides of the border. Especially as plenty of the supposed sighting take place within relative hiking distance of towns, we're not talking about way up north where nobody lives by the Yukon, we're talking about in southern British Columbia and in Washington and Oregon, plus let's throw in Alberta, Idaho, and Montana to give them as much room as possible and, theoretically, the most area in which to hide.

Only problem is that if we were talking about even only a few hundred spread over that large of an area, it's still a measurable impact on the local ecology that would be noticed by even high school geology teachers on field trip, boy scouts, and camp counselors. And in such numbers that sightings would be extremely common, like they are for other larger animals like bears and cougars and moose and elk, over even a broad stretch of territory where they have limited numbers, which would be noticed by locals, visitors, scientists, hunters, you name it.

So, here's the thing, we're talking about a number of scenarios, when looking at it logically, that uniformly dismiss the possibility of Bigfoot existing and somehow remaining hidden for all these years. If it's a very small population in a tiny, hidden area, resources would not be sufficient unless we're saying obscenely small numbers, and then the issue would be utter lack of genetic diversity leading to the likely eventual extinction of the race through inbreeding-related issues as the generations pass, so that model of a species probably would've already died out long, long ago. If it's a small population over a vast area, resources are less of an issue and theoretically possible to hide, but mating becomes extremely difficult given the distances involved without humans noticing the migratory patterns and likely mating grounds. And, on the other end, very large population that's very spread out means a species that would be as easy to detect as any other routine animal who cannot possibly hide from humans.

Nothing about the models of what we'd expect a Sasquatch species fits the mold of being simultaneously populous enough to be genetically viable, able to collect enough resources to remain sustainable, and somehow stay hidden enough to remain mostly the stuff of unconfirmed species.
Anyway your post ain't half bad, I think you got the population right, but I also think this:

- you seem to have an issue with them staying hidden, well people are seeing them, by the tens of thousands, so I don't know if I would say they are exactly staying hidden. If you mean capture then I would say you have to consider these creatures travel mostly at night, they smart enough to know that's the best time for it, and they are willing to go places that we don't go and can't.

- you also seem to underestimate how many reported sightings there have been, its probably in the tens of thousands, and then we got the unreported sightings. Has to be more unreported than reported. And easily.

- food shouldn't be an issue, they have been seen eating just about anything and they probably do, from plants and fruits to fish to meat. Bears have no problem surviving and they vastly out number them. The only issue I can see being is winter time.

- no offense but I have seen you're from Chicago, have you spent time in the outdoors and I'm no talking about camping parks with pop up tents, I mean roughing it, full backpacks and misery? I have, three and a half weeks in Oregon by the Three Sisters. No technology of ANY kind, no showers or baths, no clean clothes and not even toilet paper and our water from the creeks and rivers. And I can tell you unless you have done the same you can't appreciate not only the vast wilderness of North America but how terribly lonely it really is.

And its where you will never find school field trips or boy scouts.

__________________
1995, 2000, 2003..........
Ronnie Bass is offline   Reply With Quote