Leaderboard

There are numerous reports of BF going into a crouch on all 4s. My first encounter the BF went down on all fours with such force I heard and felt a huge thud through my boots. Examining the area afterwards that was the only way the BF could achieve cover. The trees were young, slender and brushy being a mix of mostly alder and a few young Doug Fir. and not large enough to hide behind if it remained on two feet. Looking just now at the pictures I took, most trees in the area were less than 6 inches in diameter. Not big enough to hide behind. But the ground was covered with sword ferns that were about 3 to 4 feet tall in a fairly large area. By going into a crotch, behind the ferns, the adult BF was able to get to cover. Staying on two feet it would have been observable out for over 20 yards after I moved around some brush towards it. When I moved towards the thud was when the juvenile popped up to look at me over the ferns. It had been in a low crouch too. I would guess that the crouch is used as much as hiding behind large trees especially when large trees are not present or there is a lot of down wood in an area. Both conditions were in play at that location. Years later, the day I got my dose of infra-sound, the only place the BF could have been near me on the trail, was a depression in the surface vegetation I found behind a down log. That BF had to have been in crouch or even flat on the ground, not to have been seen above the log. It was basically trapped and could not withdraw without standing up and totally exposing itself to me. I guess it figured zapping me was a better choice than doing that. At this point in time I don't blame it. I really did not like it at the time.

Got to second what SWWASAS stated, I could see a BF mistook for a bear in cases where it is on all 4, seen from behind, or seen through brush etc. Its a pretty silly notion that mis-identifications can only come from city dwellers.

It's not as bad as GIGO. Unless you're targeted by a single individual or group deliberately presenting a specific kind of consistent inaccuracy in large quantities, it is not difficult to "scrub" the data, remove the gross outliers, and wind up with something that may not be absolutely perfect but is good enough to provide accurate answers anyway. People insisting on pristine and perfect miss an important point: nature itself is neither pristine nor perfect. As long as you've got a bell curve and data enough for statistical significance you're in the sweet spot. MIB