See link below for an interesting paper published back in 2009 in the Journal of Biogeography titled "Predicting the distribution of Sasquatch in western North America: anything goes with ecological niche modeling".
Just ran into it recently, and while the paper was supposedly done tongue in cheek (because BF does not exist in Biology and because the database was not scientifically collected), the analytics were done as if the BFRO database was suitable.
The authors state that the point of the paper was to show how a very sensible-looking well-performing Ecological Niche Model can be constructed from questionable observational data.
Given all those caveats, some of the interesting conclusions from that Ecological Niche model (ENM) of BF were:
BF should be broadly distributed in western North America, with a range comprising western NA mountain ranges such as the Sierra Nevada Mountains, the Cascades, the Blue Mountains, the southern Selkirk Mountains, and the Coastal Range of the Pacific Northwest.
Precipitation of the coldest quarter was the bio-climatic variable that contributed most to the ENM, followed by temperature annual range, mean temperature of the wettest quarter, and means temperature of the driest quarter.
The predicted distribution of Sasquatch appears similar to that which might be expected for other large mammals of western North American, including the American black bear.......The two species do not demonstrate significant niche differentiation with respect to the selected bio-climatic variables. Although it is possible that Sasquatch and U. americanus share such remarkable similar bio-climatic requirements, we nonetheless suspect that many Bigfoot sightings are, in fact, of black bear.
I do not find it surprising that scientists looking at the available BFRO database find that sighting locations coincide with black bear habitat and then suggest that many of these BF reports are misidentification of black bear.
It is the easy and non-controversial answer when crunching numbers from a database that is de-linked from the human stories and details that would have rejected the black bear.
I agree with the authors that garbage in equals garbage out, and that ensuring the quality of the database is key before doing any analytics.
Is the BFRO database 100% garbage? Probably not, but it does not meet the scientific standards required for these ecoological niche models.
Nonetheless, we can use available databases with care and apply quality filters and then ask questions and looks for patterns.
A link to the paper and access to the PDF file is below.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2699.2009.02152.x/full