Leaderboard

Perhaps. I didn't see any blood- the thought occurred to me. The shorter one was about 1/4 mile further down the road. The shorter one had shoulders easier to gauge; if my current truck's (Expedition) windows are close to that of the old Blazer, its shoulders were about 40 inches.

I'm doing a project for them on PNW Watershed and am maybe 40 or so pages in so far. I'm finding extraordinary a high % of reports in very close proximity to stream/creek/river headwaters, why that is i have no idea. Doing the Klamath basin first but i boo-booed there as we don't have much current activity in that area and may switch focus up to them and Puget Sound where there is lots of current activity, and that may yield genuine results on more nests hopefully. It's incredibly time consuming but i feel, beneficial if done right..

A friend of mine was able to accompany them into the area around the 1st of the year. He was amazed how hard it was to access the area due to terrain and thick vegetation. Plus it rains a lot in the Olympics. They have gotten some of the hair analysis back and some came back as unknown as he mentions. I believe the process of the environmental DNA has been discussed in some of the threads here. Basically they take a core sample, such as the floor of a cave. Then run tests. The results are supposed to show all the various organisms that have used the cave. In this case though, as usual, it could come back as unknown, which is still good. But you are looking for everything that used the area. That would include humans. With this test contamination isn't really an option because the point is you want to know everything that was there. I assume the test is more in depth than a simple DNA test because you have to go far enough to actually identify what organism you're looking at without any idea what you are going to find. Of course the problem still exists, how close is BF DNA to human DNA.