Leaderboard

Actually I can think of nothing a sentient BF could do to get more attention on itself than ripping the head off a human that other humans find before predators get to it. No animal in nature does that to kill. Big cats will grab prey in the back of the neck but just break or sever the spinal cord leaving the head on the body. Reports of deer kills in progress mention BF breaking deer necks but not removing the head. I think it unlikely that BF would do anything different with humans. Certainly freshly beheaded humans would make the news and we would know about them.

I don't think they'll participate in a census.

Hello everyone, I’m a wildlife biologist and have experience doing population estimates for various bird species, small mammals, various reptiles, deer and Asiatic water buffalo. I’ve done both estimates for density, presence/absence and index type surveys which generally give some type of detection rate (e.g. the average number seen per station or per 10 km of driving) but not absolute numbers (density or population number). I’m a bigfoot skeptic. Walking (or driving) transect lines can work depending on the species and habitat. Typically you calculate how many you see per 1km of walking for whatever distance or rate you prefer. You can also measure the perpendicular distance from the center of the transect to the detected animal and use what is called “DISTANCE†methodology (the software for this is called DISTANCE) to estimate the population density of the species. For this method the rule of thumb is at least 60 detections to make a decent estimate. There are times when you can also measure the distance to signs of the animals. Gorilla and Orangutan populations are estimated this way by measuring the distances to nests, then estimating how many nests are in the area and using this to estimate the number of gorillas or orangutans. Nighttime surveys are also done for ungulate species in Africa using distance methodlogy. If the terrain is too rugged walking transects can be difficult as you spend most of your time trying not to fall instead of looking for the target species or sign. In rugged terrain, survey from a series of points or station counts often works better. You arrive at the point/station and for a set time period count whatever you hear and/or see. Distance methodology can be done from points also. On the “let’s do the math†thread Coonbo described how he does his surveys which are basically “playbacksâ€. Play the call and wait a set time period for a response. This often works well with birds. As near as I can tell he is one of the few using a survey methodology used by mainstream biologists for other species. Using this methodology he has estimated that bigfoot are A LOT more common than what most people believe. Trail cameras are the other technique commonly used by biologists that are being used in bigfoot surveys. Trail cameras and being able to get DNA samples from hair has made it possible to study animals that previously had been very difficult to establish population densities for. Because trail cameras photograph anything that passes by they pick up much more than the target species. So all of the trail camera projects being done in bigfoot habitat would able to document an 8 foot tall bipedal ape. If I were going to try to document the existence of bigfoot I would rely heavily on trail cameras and would probably try to stick within National Parks that formerly had grizzly bears but presently do not. There is no hunting in national parks so the animals would be less skittish. I would assume that a lack of grizzly bears would cause an increase in bigfoot numbers as they expand to fill the empty niche of a seriously large omnivore. I would try to identify possible seasonal food sources or movement corridors for camera placement. I would also systematically survey back roads during winter when snow is present for tracks and then follow tracks to collect hair samples. This has been done for mountain lions with good success. In the same parks It’s interesting that bigfoot projects that I know of (internet searches) that have made extensive use of trail cameras, have failed to document bigfoot. The problem with these methods is that when the target species is detected or its sign, it’s pretty clear cut with no ambiguity. Yes trail cameras do produce blobs where it is difficult to impossible to tell the species. However, that photo is not used in the analyses and the vast majority of photos (in my experience) taken by trail cameras are identifiable with little difficulty. The same cannot be said for bigfoot detections. From what I can gather there is no collective opinion of what constitutes a definitive bigfoot or sign detection. If there is please let me know what that is. As a biologist I find the excessive secrecy/elusiveness of what should be an easy species to document the existence of, let alone population density, to be puzzling. Documenting the known, large ape species is not that difficult. They leave obvious sign, are diurnal and not that shy, even when hunted. I don’t see why this ape species would be so different. Apologies for the length of this and thanks for starting this thread.