Posted by: Rick Noll on April 19th, 2007
If Sasquatch had a large sized population, what might we see that we are not now?
- We would have more sightings and track finds then we do now, forest workers and visitors would be seeing them more. If they numbered as many as black bear we may still not be finding bones but we would be seeing more damage caused by them. If they were as numerous as deer or elk then we would be finding bones… or we would be seeing an increase in population for other animals like porcupines.
- We would be seeing more resources being utilized by them. More foraging of eatable flora, more fishing, more gathering of insects and amphibians. A larger population would impart within tribal knowledge of such resources, just like fishing areas for grizzly are in Alaska. This would congregate the animals or focus their presence at specific times and places.
- We would be seeing more reports describing behavior. The animals would not be so fast in moving off when finding themselves if safer numbers.
- We would be seeing more reports of multiple creatures in each instance. A larger population doesn’t mean that death gets reduced… it means that there are more infants.
- We would have more competition between them and other animals including humans. Berry patches and fishing grounds would get discovered and utilized more.
- We would have more films, video and still images of the animals. With more and more people on this planet and more and more availability of photographic means (from cell phones to digital cameras the size of a pack of napkins), people would be recording the encounters if there were more of these creatures.
- We would see more of the pattern embracing their niche. The animals would essentially stop being cryptic in its life story.
- We would be able to predict their occurrences or presence more often or more reliably.
- We would have developed a successful capture of an individual or at least have a much better chance of finding one dead from natural causes.
- We would be seeing more infant Sasquatch.
- What is a large size population? Probably on the order of wolverine in the area equal to the size of Washington State I would think. Certainly no more than that for cougar.
- Right now I am leaning towards a population density on the order of Grizzly in areas where they inhabit the land. I would say that I would be surprised if there were more than 5 or 6 individuals per 400 square mile area.
- An animal fills out its population when resources allow it. So whatever resources the animal needs or possibly uses is a valid inquiry and monitoring project for this mystery.
- What areas might we find the bulk of the population of Sasquatch in?
- On the edges of human habitation and environmental impact.
- Designated wilderness where human vehicular transportation is limited as well as environmental manipulation.
- Protected watersheds gated off from the public and with limited use.
- Native American lands that are undeveloped and protected.
- Areas that have equal amounts of surface in X, Y and Z. Areas that contain hills, mountains, cliffs, slopes, etc. This can effectively multiply a given area its actual usable surface. A flat 20 by 20 square mile tract of land can contain 400 square miles if flat or almost 1000 square miles if mountainous.
- Swampy and boggy areas.
- Areas with good, reliable, unimpeded water sources.
- Coastal areas.
- Areas with potential unmonitored food resources such as herds of ungulates, bivalves, small mammals, amphibians, reptiles, birds and insects.
- Areas that have potential shelter.
- These animals probably find areas were they can lie down and forage, hiding their height and thus reducing their discovery with casual observations.
- The animals have to contend with thermoregulation in some way. It might be that they simply are built to handle heat and cold but I would venture a guess that their behavior has developed around this aspect as well. We might eventually find them traveling between the sides of remote valleys, chasing or avoiding the sun as it were as it hunts and forages. To a casual observer seeing a Sasquatch foraging on a steep green mountain slope climbing on all fours it could look like just another bear. Certainly standing on such a slope would be precarious at best.
- The animal’s behavior, as are all animals, would be geared for preservation, taking as little risks as possible to its life and potential offspring. They would avoid confrontations with animals as large and strong as them. This might be why documented grizzly habitats have less reportage of these creatures than non grizzly habitat. Even an elk could be considered a potential threat. A full grown cougar would not attempt to take down even a healthy deer for fear of being injured by horn or hoof and having infection setting in. Only the sick, injured, constrained, old and small infant reduce this threat to manageable means.
- Is the Sasquatch a predator or prey? I can not see them being prey. Maybe occasionally a grizzly might get an infant but a full adult would be a good match. I visualize a chart showing a typical individual Sasquatch traveling through its years from infant to maturity and only there find that Sasquatch as prey fits either end of the spectrum.
- I also believe that a lower population is only possible with a longer life span. Maybe as much as that of humans.
- Nature seeks a balance. The balance that is documented, at least in the Pacific Northwest dictates a small population at best for Sasquatch.
Rick Noll has been actively searching for the Sasquatch since 1969 and continues his pursuit with extended field trips into the Pacific Northwest's most remote regions. Rick has worked with Peter Byrne, René Dahinden, Grover Krantz, John Green, Jeff Meldrum and the BFRO during all this. He helped with many documentaries on the subject including Animal X: The Skookum Expedition and Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science.