Toward A Workable Census Methodology.

[Guest Stan Norton]

Ok. This thread is born out of frustration. I'm fed up of reading all sorts of wishy washy nonsense on this forum about how sasquatch is a special case and only certain individuals have the knowledge to commune with big hairy. I am a proponent in that I am entirely open to the idea that this creature exists. I am also a professional ecologist firmly rooted in the realities of biological research and so, for me, the only way we can ever hope to get over the perennial nonsense that plagues this field is to apply scientific rigour. This is sadly lacking from much research into sasquatch...just look at some of the tosh spouted on here.

 

I would therefore like serious minded individuals - I am hoping that those with outlandish ideas about sasquatch will opt out - to attempt to reach a workable census methodology which could be applied in a state or region or continent wide survey of likely sasquatch habitat, with the aim of gathering statistically valid data to see if there is indeed anything to this. 

 

I should very much like the sceptical among the membership to chip in in a constructive manner...please do suspend your natural incredulity for a while and play along...it would be much appreciated by many, not least me. 

 

I am looking for those with experience or knowledge of wildlife survey to help. Are there parallels from censuses for other organisms? Are there techniques which would not work for this creature? What is the balance between scientific rigour and practicable field methods?

 

My initial thoughts are some kind of transect method, using regular point counts to listen for or record putative calls.

 

I am in Britain and have never visited the Americas so local knowledge is vital to finding out what is possible.

 

Please, let intelligent discussion commence! Thanks in advance!

Edited April 14, 2014 by Stan Norton

[Guest]

Well, the biggest question would be, what kind of tea for tea-time? After that, its all down hill. Earl Grey is just so...grey.

Edited April 14, 2014 by Wag

[BobbyO]

You did say intelligent Stan didn't you ?

[Guest JiggyPotamus]

I completely agree that rigorous scientific methodology needs to be applied to the field in general, but I also believe it is true that sasquatch IS an exceptional case. One will not be able to use the same methodologies that have been used on other surveys and expect similar results, because there is no other animal, to my knowledge, that couples and avoidance instinct with intelligence. I say avoidance is an instinct because it appears to be a trait shared among the entire population. If it were a choice then the avoidance would be more sporadic. And there is very little eyewitness evidence to suggest that sasquatch actually approach people, rather they almost always seem to go in the opposite direction, thus why I use the term avoidance.

 

Regarding the methods you suggested, I think the results would be inconclusive for one main reason: there is no widely accepted norm for sasquatch vocalizations, therefore any methods that dealt strictly with cataloguing sounds will be hit or miss, and thus unreliable, as well as statistically useless. I disagree that there is no scientific rigour in sasquatch research, but I do think such data is in short supply. I believe this is for two reasons...First, the inexperience of the majority of researchers when it comes to how to devise an experiment, collect data, etc..., and second, a lack of usable methods for developing experiments, collecting data, etc...

 

It doesn't matter how much data one collects when the scientific community will simply conclude that it has nothing to do with sasquatch. Any sounds will be attributed to known animals, hoaxes, etc., while tracks will be attributed to anything but bigfoot, and it will continue in such a way with virtually any evidence because there is nothing there that absolutely suggests "bigfoot." Even video evidence that shows bigfoot is not acceptable in scientific terms, because there is always the possibility that it is fake.

Even if the most respected biologist in the world captured video evidence, there would be claims that if that person didn't hoax it, then that person was hoaxed.

 

The ONLY type of evidence that is usable from a scientific point of view is DNA. Now, there is a huge difference in collecting and logging data to establish a scientific case to the rest of the world, and simply attempting to learn more about these animals, for one's own knowledge and understanding, or that of a small community. So I think that if you wish to create a methodology for collecting data and making an actual scientific case out of it, you are not likely to get far. But if you simply wish to learn more about the animals themselves, then you will have more success.

 

I suppose that the data could one day become scientifically relevant, even if it is irrelevant to the scientific community at present. So if that is the case, then the main problem seems to be actually developing such a methodology that is not plagued by the evasive nature of these animals themselves.

 

But like I said, I definitely think something SHOULD be done, but the problem is figuring out what that something is, aside from collecting samples for DNA analysis. There has been debate as to whether DNA itself will be enough to prove the existence of the species, and it very well might not get the world to recognize bigfoot. I don't mean to bash your ideas or anything, as my main point is that things are not as cut and dry with bigfoot as with other animals, because bigfoot seems to be different from other animals, which is to be expected if they've remained hidden for all this time right under the nose of civilization.

 

I wish I could offer something more constructive, but I suppose that when one has had their own bigfoot encounter, and has been around the community for a while and has seen what occurs and how the rest of the world views the topic, they can easily turn into a cynic. Again, I think the best thing to do as far as making a scientific case would be to collect potential samples which might contain DNA.  As far as learning more about their behavior, the sighting record is the best source of data in that regard.

 

I would definitely be on board with helping in any way that I could, but as of right now I am drawing a blank as to what exactly one could do. I do have ideas regarding methods to increase one's chances of having a sighting. I just remembered the collection of footprint size data, which when plotted on a graph, illustrates the pattern that is indicative of a living population of animals. I think something like that is quite scientific, as it is done by scientists when studying some other species...yet it doesn't seem like that interesting data, which lessens the odds of all footprints being hoaxes quite a bit, seems to stir any type of enthusiasm in mainstream scientists. But then again, with the way much of the world views the idea of bigfoot, I don't really blame scientists for not wanting to stick their necks out.

 

The last thing I wanted to touch on is my belief that the types of studies that are needed, things like you've suggested in this thread, will come relatively quickly after the discovery of the species. There will be some studies that will require significant funding, which is just not available at the moment. Personally I feel that relatively decent evidence has been collected considering everything is done by amateurs for the most part.

[MIB]

I don't think the wildlife survey paradigm works where awareness of self and deliberate planning / avoidance rather than operating on instinct are involved.   That means I think the underlying assumptions are flawed.   As Thom Powell once wrote, think Guerilla rather than Gorilla. 

 

If you fail, I already told you so.    But I might be wrong.  Good luck.

 

MIB

[Incorrigible1]

underlying assumptions...........

Plenty of those to be found hereabouts.

[MIB]

Plenty of those to be found hereabouts.

 

Got proof of that or is it just an assumption?    

 

MIB

[Midnight Owl]

I agree with you Stan for the most part, but what you are proposing would take time, money and a boatload of systematic effort.  I may be wrong, but any serious inquiries have come from private individuals and groups working from their own pocketbook or donations.  Sure, there are few receiving some form of direct or indirect government funding, but this is not the rule.

 

My feeling is until the U.S. government seriously considers and establishes efforts towards research, this hit and miss form of study will continue.  Just my two cents here...

[Guest keninsc]

Assumptions are all we have to go on, Bigfoot is yet to be proven to exist. And yet here we are conjectuting on how to count them.

I just think we need to find them first. Silly me.

[Guest Stan Norton]

Ken, you misunderstand. The point of my thread is to discuss possible methods, using scientifically valid techniques, of censusing sasquatch. This would be one way of helping establish if there is truly something out there. Its an open discussion but please do read and understand what is being asked before commenting.

I'd like serious comments on possible field methods applicable to sample areas within the purported range.

[southernyahoo]

I think most serious researchers are trying to develop a functional method of finding them, which is typically verified only through their own experiences. It runs into problems when it is not universally agreed upon that anyone has actually found them repeatedly.

You have to find them to study them, and any evidence of that typically gets torn apart. So most of the data is kept in house and used for later experiments.

You might have noticed that there are people who believe they can do this, but the evidence of it is scant or questionable. It gets looked at through different mind sets, lenses, filters etc. Some examiners have an agenda, some objective, and some clearly dismissive without cause.

Censusing for Sasquatch would start with some known sign, sounds or trace of it which few nonproponents would agree upon, but this is exactly how I would proceed to find them. You just pick what is indicative to you as evidence of a hominid or hominin and see if it repeats in the evidence/data.

[Guest Stan Norton]

I agree with you Stan for the most part, but what you are proposing would take time, money and a boatload of systematic effort.  I may be wrong, but any serious inquiries have come from private individuals and groups working from their own pocketbook or donations.  Sure, there are few receiving some form of direct or indirect government funding, but this is not the rule.

 

My feeling is until the U.S. government seriously considers and establishes efforts towards research, this hit and miss form of study will continue.  Just my two cents here...

 

Hey I never said it would be cheap or easy. All I would like is for folks to think logically about how we might reach a usable field census methodology. There must be parallels from other cryptic mammal species in wooded habitats. I want people to imagine what might work. Clearly this is all based on the assumption that sasquatch are real! 

I think most serious researchers are trying to develop a functional method of finding them, which is typically verified only through their own experiences. It runs into problems when it is not universally agreed upon that anyone has actually found them repeatedly.

You have to find them to study them, and any evidence of that typically gets torn apart. So most of the data is kept in house and used for later experiments.

You might have noticed that there are people who believe they can do this, but the evidence of it is scant or questionable. It gets looked at through different mind sets, lenses, filters etc. Some examiners have an agenda, some objective, and some clearly dismissive without cause.

Censusing for Sasquatch would start with some known sign, sounds or trace of it which few nonproponents would agree upon, but this is exactly how I would proceed to find them. You just pick what is indicative to you as evidence of a hominid or hominin and see if it repeats in the evidence/data.

 

Ok, so what might that field sign be? Are there putative signs common to all areas? There is something in this I know it. We just need to pool minds to work towards an answer. Maybe what we decide upon as a surveyable field sign may lead on to more insights, who knows? 

[southernyahoo]

The field census methodology was one of my first ideas when deciding to go in the field. The sounds should be the easiest to collect because they can be picked up hundreds of yards from the source. Sasquatch would have to have a way of finding each other and new mates or they would inbreed and die out. Their numbers would have to be low enough to not exhaust the food supply but large enough that they could reliably find other clans. So the long distance calls come into play, and this is where my research went to intercept the calls and determine if they are hominin/ primate calls.

[Guest]

Stan just thinking out loud here but several things we just don't know for sure could raise or lower the population in a given area. Just off the top of my head is what their main diet consists of and weather they live in groups, male/female and kido's, or are loners. Just these couple of items could affect weather there were 10 BF living in an area or 1. Just something that crossed my mind. There is so much about them that we just don't know for sure.

[indiefoot]

I have ventured a couple of ideas as to the purpose of the collections of sticks forming a teepee that are found in association with BF. I can't see them being shelters and they seem to be pretty common. What if they were to represent the population of BF in a certain area? Watching one for a few years to note any changes might give some insight as to what, if any, purpose they have.

 

Just throwing out a wild idea.