Leaderboard

Mendoza, Thanks for your efforts and applying statistical analysis to Green’s database. Below are some general observations/comments. I don’t quite follow the premises assumed for your conclusions: 1) That correlation to population is suggestive of fabricated reports. 2) That correlation to population density is consistent with the model of receiving a report of an animal. 3) That correlation between black bear population density and report frequency is the expected result if misidentification of black bears is a significant contributor to the Bigfoot phenomenon. On premise #1, I would imagine that states with higher human population will yield higher number of hoaxes (there is always a % of those). But, I would also imagine that if BF was a real creature, that states (that contain BF habitat) with higher human populations will also yield higher number of reports. Thus, I would expect some correlation between frequency of BF reports and human population, and this would not necessarily imply hoax. On premise #2, I also agree with BigTreeWalker, in that human population density should be more granular (maybe by county instead of state) in order to reflect the true low population density of those places in Northern CA, OR, and WA that have higher BF frequency counts. I am curious if you find the opposite results (once adjusting for human population by county) whereas there is a negative correlation between BF report frequency and high human population density. That is what I would expect. For example, I would expect that Del Norte County and Tuolumne County in California will have more BF reports than West Contra Costa County, despite WCC County having higher human population density. On premise #3, I always thought that BF sighting reports will be positively correlated with Black Bear population density because they share the same habitat. My rule of thumb has been: if there is bear and deer population present, then there is a higher probability of finding BF present. Thus, a positive correlation between frequency BF sighting reports and black bear density does not suggest or imply misidentification of BF as black bear. I will love to see your work applied to PNW states by county and see what you find. Instead of differentiating (testing the different hypotheses) by states, you differentiate by counties. We can still learn much from this effort. Also, you might be able to check if any BF reports are present in counties that have zero black bear populations (if they exist, I have not checked). In my mind, if there is no bear habitat present, then the report is more likely to be a hoax.

Interesting study. But I am with Redbone on the conclusions from the data used. I will use the state of Washington in your core area for example. A human population density of +101 /sq mi gives a very skewed view of the state as a whole. Half the population lives in only three counties of the 39 in the state. If you go down to the county level using Skamania county for an example (one of the highest sighting areas in the state) the population density is <7. That is a huge difference from the stated value for the state. That figure is closer to the reality of what is seen in the remote areas of the state even during the summer when outdoor recreation is at a high. The huge majority of people in the higher population areas will never leave those areas seasonally to increase the population densities in the more remote places. The same holds true in Oregon as well. Some of them might go to the beach during the summer or to a ski resort in the winter but an occasional camping trip or a drive down one of the interstates is the most influx you will see. Main arterial usage numbers would probably be a better data set to use, as Explorer has done with his studies. The bear population is skewed in the other direction. Because the state of WA is not all bear habitat. Only about half of it is. Therefore doubling the bear population in actual available habitat. Again Oregon is about the same. As Redbone mentioned there is a big difference between the urban and rural population. And available habitat should be considered. This is going to change the analysis and the conclusions.