Leaderboard

Been there, done that, XC. My closest Grizz encounter ended with the bear's nose plowing dirt 20' from my toes, his choice, not mine, as he was coming full tilt, and I wasn't waiting another nanosecond to find out if he was bluffing. Yes, I felt fear, and could taste the brassy taste of adrenaline for hours after, but he's a beautiful rug, and I'm here typing the tale. Fear is a good thing under those circumstances. I've just been invited to back up an old buddy who drew a very rare Grizzly tag for a remote BC inlet, and am seriously thinking about going, as at 69, I may not have too many more years to go on these adventures. No, I don't have big shiny brass ones, just a clear understanding of the risks, and my own abilities, as does my BFing partner, Magniaesir, and a couple of others I have recently come to know. Given the opportunity, none of them will freeze up, and the job will get done.

Well, no one has nor ever can read as many reports as you. Pin a rose on your arse. Nor can anyone ever hope to discern truth from reports as you have. ::envious::

What would anybody know about a dark unidentifiable object seen at a distance on a ridge? Seriously, I'm having a hard time understanding how you guys are seeing these as credible. Again BFRO followup immediately labels it a Sasquatch?? This is exactly as Dmaker was saying. The initial report is just "unidentifiable", then after excited BFRO man talks to them the mother has become sure it was a Sasquatch.. Also the two rangers at Yellowstone report above I thought was interesting in that they saw a 7 foot creature cross the road in front of them, and that these guys also had a buddy who happened to be 7 feet tall. Talk about a rare situation, I mean really what are the odds of that?

That post was plainly not directed at anyone at all, and I will say that if a post I make is directed towards someone I don't do it in a roundabout way, I will directly address them. It was a generalization I pulled out from all of the people I have been around since I delved into this subject 5 or so years ago, the dominating attitude towards these creatures for those who have had, are very actively looking to have, or are just about to have a encounter with one is a attitude of total fear, if not outright terror. I would say that you would be hard pressed to find a creature on earth that people would be more frightened of, or I would like to say "disconnected" from. That dense fear plays a huge role in keeping hardcore researchers from being successful. I have seen people work and work and work their tail off to get close to one for whatever reason, then when it happens their heart just melts and all they want is for the experience to end as fast as possible.

If you think he bears up under scrutiny dmaker, I might take that recommendation and look at his work more closely. So much noise to signal out there, and folks clamoring for their 15 minutes. So many of us have just walked away from the whole circus, but I do keep looking for the primary research results....let me draw our own conclusions and spare me the commercial tie-ins. It has gotten to the point where if anyone considered to be a "serious" researcher collaborates with anyone who is questionable, the taint to them is indelible. That is not a good thing, when you are talking about advancing scientific knowledge, but understandable. I would just want to call a moratorium on any so-called BF expert wearing any sort of headgear. (That, and I would also like to propose that any band or performer who poses for a publicity still on any set of railroad tracks have their capos smashed)

I think for the most part the one distinguishing factor that separates the successful researcher from the unsuccessful is sincerity in this field man, think back on how many of the most famous "researchers" have NEVER had any experience whatsoever with a Sasquatch, certainly never seen one. The vast majority of 'bigfooters' pro-kill or not that even make it out into the woods I can say for certain DO NOT want to be around a Sasquatch no matter how much they may THINK they do and tell others they do. Whenever most people have a experience it is one dominated by a very single tracked and dense attitude of fear and everything that happens is always filtered through that attitude and the hyper defensiveness that comes along with it, maybe it is called for, maybe it isn't, probably has to be taken on a case by case basis. That deep gritty sincerity simply is not there and when the rubber hits the road the tires blow. Seems like most of the methods used to get close to these creature can be boiled down to being simply things that take the advantage out of your court and put it in theirs, just isn't for the faint of heart.

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.