Let's Do Some Math...

[scottv]

Hello everyone,

 

Coonbo, which methods and equipment do you use to come up with these estimates, Occupancy with program Presence?

 

Yes, definitely people don't see many bears even when they are there, however presence of bears is not hard to document when you look for sign, use trail cameras etc. Trail cameras and identifying DNA from hair samples has allowed biologists to estimate the populations of many species (bears, cougars, tigers. wolverines etc) that had previously been a something of a mystery. To the best of my knowledge (somewhat limited with the bigfoot subject) these methods have not yielded unquestionable existence of a bipedal North American ape, let alone a population density estimate.

 

One would expect that bigfoot numbers would be higher in the absence of grizzly bears (most of the lower 48 states in the U.S.) as bigfoot would have expanded to fill the empty niche. One would also expect bigfoot to be easier to document in national parks where hunting is not allowed. Bears act very differently in hunted and non-hunted populations. I would expect bigfoot reach population densities similar to grizzly bears. Great apes reach densities that are much higher but rainforest habitat supports this and I don't think temperate, boreal or Northwest coastal rainforest is as productive but could be wrong on that.

[Guest]

Nice math you have there!

[salubrious]

If they are only 14 times rarer than bears then numerically we should have found one, IF the argument is purely numerical....  if sasquatch exists, it must be better at avoiding us, which his post and this argument completely fail to address. 

 

One thing the math ignores is the action of the creature itself. A significant difference between bears and BF is that BF seems to have a reason why it does not want to be seen and is apparently actively doing something about it. Bears don't seem to care, for example don't really mind if the occasional infrared flash allows them to be seen on a trail cam. If we accept that BF is motivated to stay out of our sight, and also has the smarts to make that happen (and can see the infrared activity of trail cams), there could be a lot more of them than there are bears and we would be right where we are right now.

 

I think as humans we exercise a great deal of hubris when comparing ourselves to other creatures- we make assumptions that don't hold up because we always assume that we are the smartest thing ever. But what if we aren't, and the smartest thing on the planet really does not want to hang out or sacrifice itself for that thing that we call 'science'?

[Guest Coonbo]

Coonbo, which methods and equipment do you use to come up with these estimates, Occupancy with program Presence?

 

 

Excellent question scottv.  Over the years, my wife and I have participated in counts of different types with the Audubon Society, USGS, DOI, and various state conservation agencies, but some of the counts developed and used by ornithologists seem, to me, to be the most applicable to BF research.  I've just started playing with Presence and some other software that some Ornithologist friends are using.  Patch occupancy numbers can be very useful.  And the good thing is that BF evidence seems, to me, to be a nice mesh with the counting methods now being used in ornithology in areas of very low population density, and low numbers of individuals. 

 

As far as equipment, we've used a wide variety of photographic and video equipment, various night vision, IR and thermal devices, and a wide variety of audio devices ranging from "bionic ears" and hunter's amplified earphones, to kluged-up VCR's modified for high quality audio recording, to reel-to-reel, cassette, mini-cassette, DAT, and now, digital recorders of various grades and capabilities.  And with the audio recorders we've used a wide variety of mics.  One of the most important things we do while in the field is to try to determine the different locations that vocalizations are coming from and try to determine how many individuals are making them. 

Edited April 2, 2014 by Coonbo

[Guest Stan Norton]

Thank goodness that someone is using kosher biological field census methods! Rarely do we ever hear of anyone or any research group utilizing the very well established methods already being used by countless academics, field biologists and volunteers day in day out for other taxa. The world of sasquatch seriously needs an injection of realism and standardized sampling methods are a great start!

[Cotter]

@Coonbo - very impressive!!!
 

Is your end goal to prove the species existence?

And, if you don't mind, can you share with us what sort of photographic, audio, and 'other' evidence you have gathered?

Obviously, with your years of investigating these things, please provide the cliff notes!!  (sorry to derail)

 

Thank you!
 

[Guest]

There's nothing wrong with scientific method until it becomes religion and closes your eyes to the very questions that should be asked merely because science can't find a way to answer them.   It's an important tool, but it's JUST a tool.   When science becomes dogma it stops being science. 

 

Evidence that is outside current explanations should not be discarded or dismissed.  I should be set aside at times in its own "hmmm bucket" but we should go back to it time to time to see if our evolving understanding now accounts for part of it AND whether looking at it again creates new understanding that escaped us before.   It's a process, not an event.

 

MIB

I am not saying that anything should be dismissed or discarded. One of the things I love about cryptozoology, and Bigfoot especially, is the range of material to peruse. There are people who have psychic experiences with 'squatches and people who vehemently deny anything of the sort. Even REAL bigfoots are going to have psychological effects on witnesses and nonwitnesses. I think the phenomenon itself tells a lot more about the people who are interested in the phenomenon than about bigfoot per se. That's what I'm saying.

[scottv]

Coonbo,

 

so you are doing point counts with audio and/or video equipment or spot mapping? If point counts, do you try and estimate the distance to the object being counted so you can analyze using the program DISTANCE and have a density estimate?

 

From what I can see, most bigfoot researchers do not use the methods that are used in wildlife biology.

[Guest Llawgoch]

One thing the math ignores is the action of the creature itself. A significant difference between bears and BF is that BF seems to have a reason why it does not want to be seen and is apparently actively doing something about it. Bears don't seem to care, for example don't really mind if the occasional infrared flash allows them to be seen on a trail cam. If we accept that BF is motivated to stay out of our sight, and also has the smarts to make that happen (and can see the infrared activity of trail cams), there could be a lot more of them than there are bears and we would be right where we are right now.

 

 

Seriously, did you think I needed telling that?  When it's the point I've been making all along?

 

[Guest Coonbo]

@ scottv, 

 

In the 300 sq mile area I referenced earlier, I've done spot mapping and point counts, and I had a selection of points that I would go to, listen for 10 to 20 minutes, call, and listen for another 10 to 20 minutes (depending on results) at least twice a month for about 2 years.  I tried to start at one end of the area (or patch) and work my way all the way through the area in one night so that I could be certain that there weren't range overlaps or that I wasn't mistakenly counting one troupe that had a larger range as two separate troupes.  At each of the points, I noted direction, approximate distance, numbers of distinct voices, the type of vocalizations, and of course, whether or not there was a visual.  I also noted other occurrences and wildlife activities of interest.  It didn't take me long to figure out the basic home ranges of the troupes in that area.  Most of the time I was by myself, but two or three times a year I'd have fellow researchers with me.  I moved to Missouri in fall of 2002, but we continue to return to that area every few years.  We were just there last month in mid-March. 

 

My fellow researchers owned most of the equipment we used.  I had still cameras, one digital that could do fair video, and audio, and a jury-rigged VCR converted for audio recording that I ran off of a couple marine batteries and an inverter, and a pretty danged good set of hunter's amplified headphones, with an audio output jack, that I still use today.

 

In that area, I have done density calculations multiple times since 2000.  Consistently, in that patch of exceptionally good habitat, the density has ranged from 4 to 5 square miles per bigfoot, or 0.2 to 0.25 BF per square mile.  I know of other patches with similar densities, but my conservative estimate is that the nine states of AL, GA, KY, LA, MS, OH, OK, TN, and TX probably average statewide densities of one quarter to one fifth of that, or in other words, one bigfoot per 20 to 25 square miles, or put another way, 0.04 to 0.05 bigfoot per square mile.  Taking the most conservative number of 0.04 BF per square mile, that yields 26,867 BF just in those nine states. 

 

Since I've only researched TX in the eastern, western, and panhandle areas, and not in the central and southern areas, lets say I'm wrong about Texas and pull its 268,820 square miles out of the equation and say it's just got about 3000 BF statewide.  That still yields 16,114 BF in the other ten states and throw in Texas' 3000 and you've got 19,114 BF in those 11 states alone. 

Edited April 3, 2014 by Coonbo

[dmaker]

Is 0.05 bigfoot just a big pile of BS (bigfoot skat) ?    

Edited April 3, 2014 by dmaker

[salubrious]

Seriously, did you think I needed telling that?  When it's the point I've been making all along?

 

Interesting. Yes, I did (well, maybe not 'needed', figured you would be OK without me saying anything ). From the post I was responding to, your point did not seem obvious at the time.

 

But apparently we were on the same page...

[scottv]

Coonbo, thank you for all of the information.

 

So most of your detections are audio and not visual right? so in optimum habitat we're looking at 20-25 animals per 100 square miles. How do you think they have managed to stay "hidden" with that many animals in a space that is not all that big (10 miles by 10 miles). I'm originally from Missouri, is there a sizeable population in the Ozarks? Lastly, what constitutes optimum habitat for the high densities? Apologies for all of the questions but I have not encountered anyone that does these types of surveys for bigfoot.

[Guest Coonbo]

scottv,

 

Absolutely, most of the detections are audio, but over time, we've had a surprising number of visuals in some of these areas or patches that back up our audio detections.  IR and thermal imaging has helped this TREMENDOUSLY.  Although some of these high density BF patches are surprisingly close to higher density human populations, the patches themselves are out-of-the-way, "boonie" type areas, with low density of human population within the patch itself.  As far as the boogers staying "hidden" in these patches - they don't - that's what's tipped me off to most of the ones I know about - first by very carefully reading sighting reports, talking to local folks and hearing verbal reports, sometimes making friends with and talking to local LEO's (which must be done VERY delicately), etc., etc.   Then I very carefully study the area and its terrain features, plot the sightings, find the access points, decide on a few points within the area to go check out, and then hit the field. 

 

You asked what constitutes optimum habitat for the high densities.  Now, I want to preface my answer by saying that I have absolutely NO experience with the heavily forested areas of the PNW, so what I know and state can only apply to areas of the US east of there, and primarily from Oklahoma and East Texas eastward.  And my research in Maine and upper New England wasn't up to the standards that I use today.  Back to the question - In addition to the patches being out-of-the-way, "boonie" type areas with low human population density, as I described in the above paragraph - prime, high density BF patches have the following attributes:  good, year-round water sources that are large enough to support eating-sized fish; high, year-round multi-species game populations; high biological diversity; interspersed areas of agriculture or timber management which create lots of browse opportunities and lots of "edge" cover; multiple tracts of forest covering unbroken areas of at least several hundred acres; isolated heavily forested areas (for raising their young) with multiple escape routes with enough cover to keep the BF concealed; ample travel corridors that allow them to stay relatively concealed when they want; terrain features they can take advantage of for shelter or concealment or other purposes; and finally, a minimal amount of high-traffic roads and highways.  I might have missed an attribute, but these are the one's that come to mind now.

 

Keep in mind that these high density areas are relatively small and very scattered.  That's why I estimated state-wide densities of only one quarter to one fifth that of the high density patches.  And those statewide, much lower densities cover the VAST majority of the land.

 

There's a fair population of BF in parts of the Ozarks, but I don't know of any high density places there.  But I haven't covered much of it, so don't take my word as being anything definitive.

Edited April 3, 2014 by Coonbo

[JDL]

Interesting.  At the group of small lakes near Lake Tahoe where we used to camp, and where I had multiple encounters, two while fishing, the lakes had been recently stocked.

 

I thought this was a little strange because they weren't fished that much, probably because they were near treeline altitude.  There were too many lakes at lower altitude that were better fishing and attracted many times more fishermen and campers.

 

I decided at the time that the Forest Service was trying to draw more people to that area, but now it makes me wonder whether or not these lakes are "unofficial" habitat and were stocked with the bigfoot in mind.